2.12.2011   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 351/1

A.

whereas, since the enlargement of the European Union in 2004, the Baltic Sea has become the EU’s internal sea, which unites countries but also presents its own challenge, and whereas the countries of the Baltic Sea Region demonstrate interdependence and share the same problems,

B.

whereas, the Strategy for the Baltic Sea Region is a pilot for future macro-regional strategies, and the Strategy’s success can be a model for the way in which future strategies can be implemented,

C.

whereas the idea of creating functional regions, focused around joint objectives and development problems, can lead to an increase in the effectiveness of EU regional policy,

D.

whereas in order to increase the effectiveness of regional policy, in particular in terms of its post-2013 reform, the idea of an integrated approach should be supported and developed, together with the creation of strategies for macro-regions that are strategies for the whole of the European Union, the implementation of which must not, however, lead to the renationalisation of cohesion policy,

E.

whereas the Baltic Sea remains the most polluted sea in the European Union, and its environmental status should not worsen because of the implementation of the large-scale infrastructure projects in and around the Baltic Sea (including non-EU countries),

1.

Welcomes the approval of the European Commission and the support of the Council for the Strategy for the Baltic Sea Region, which Parliament has been calling for since 2006;

2.

Welcomes, in particular, the fact that the Strategy is the result of broad consultation with interested parties in the Member States, including not only national, regional and local authorities but also the academic and business communities as well as NGOs, showing that the consultation process and the inclusion of partners from the very beginning of work on the Strategy is an important factor in its success; in this regard welcomes the establishment of a civil society forum in the region such as the Baltic Sea Action Summit and calls for similar initiatives for future macro-regions that bring together public and private actors, enabling them to become involved in the development of macro-regional strategies;

3.

Recommends, in this context, increasing the local communities’ involvement by setting up wider and more focused communication and consultation tools, including through the local media (local television, radio and printed and online newspapers); calls on the Commission to create a special web portal devoted to the Baltic Sea Strategy, which would act as a forum for the exchange of experiences regarding current and future projects undertaken by central and local governments, NGOs and other entities active in the Baltic Sea Region;

4.

Welcomes the EU2020 Strategy, which is consistent with the goals set on the Baltic Sea Strategy and notes that EU2020 can act as an efficient framework for the implementation and strengthening of the Baltic Sea Strategy;

5.

Believes that the establishment as part of the Strategy of a new framework for cooperation based on an integrated approach opens up the possibility for more rational and effective use of the financial resources available for environmental protection and the development of the Baltic Sea Region both from EU and national funds and from various financial institutions;

6.

Draws attention to the disproportion in terms of economic development and innovation that exists in the Baltic Sea Region and the necessity to increase the potential of all areas, including the highly developed ones, as they can help in pulling forward the least advantaged regions; points out the need to promote new areas with development and innovation potential and to take the opportunity of using the added value of the Baltic Sea Strategy and other future macro-regional strategies to reach new level of synergy which can reduce existing disparities, in order to create a permanent area of common prosperity with a high level of competitiveness, which is crucial in the face of an aging population and new patterns in globalisation;

7.

Emphasises that the prompt and consistent implementation of existing EU legal acts designed to strengthen the internal market, such as the Services Directive, is necessary to increase the attractiveness of the Baltic Sea Region as an economic area;

8.

Calls on the Member States and regions to take advantage of the Structural Funds available for 2007-2013 in order to ensure maximum support for the Strategy, in particular to promote job creation and economic growth in areas most affected by the economic crisis, and, at the same time, recommends, where justified, making provision for changes to the Operational Programmes in the current programming period; highlights that exploiting the particular characteristics of regions could lead to much more effective use of the Structural Funds and the creation of added value at regional level;

9.

Notes the deep impact the global financial and economic crisis has had on all countries in the region, in particular the Baltic States; calls on all stakeholders not to weaken their commitment to the EU Baltic Sea Strategy because of the crisis;

10.

Considers that all actions regarding sector policies with a territorial dimension are of key importance to the Strategy’s success and the achievement of the ambitious goals of further macro-regional strategies, including the common agricultural policy, fisheries policy, transport policy, industrial policy, research policy, and a coherent infrastructure policy, as well as combining available funds intended for jointly defined goals in a given area; in this context a policy review should be carried out with regard to these new challenges, an appropriate framework should be put in place at EU level and it should be determined how this framework should relate to existing national and local structures;

11.

Believes that the Strategy’s territorial dimension will lead to the concrete development of the idea of territorial cohesion, which the Treaty of Lisbon places on an equal footing with economic and social cohesion, and with this in mind calls on the Commission to engage in active dialogue on the role and impact of EU macro-regional policies after 2013;

12.

Encourages the development of specific provisions with the forthcoming general regulation on Structural Funds on the basis of territorial cooperation provisions that are clear, and take into account the different administrative culture and do not impose extra administrative burdens on the beneficiaries, in order to strengthen the cooperation between countries and regions, and the development of further joint action strategies which may enhance the region’s attractiveness at the European and international levels and may subsequently constitute a model for cross-border cooperation;

13.

Draws attention to the fact that the Strategy for the Baltic Sea Region should be seen as a process in which the principle of action and cooperation is constantly developed, making it necessary to update the strategy, and that the overriding goal is to find optimal mechanisms that can be transferred to future macro-regional strategies; underlines, in this respect, the importance of collecting, summarising, and promoting successful initiatives and their results; supports the Commission’s plan to create a best practices database with a view to using these practices to develop future macro-regional strategies;

14.

Considers that territorial cooperation developed as part of a strategy for macro-regions can lead to a significant strengthening of the integration process through the greater involvement of civil society in the decision-making process and the implementation of concrete actions; in this context the implementation particularly of social, economic, cultural, educational and tourism elements is recommended for macro-regional strategies, and, in order to strengthen local civil society participation and subsidiarity, also considers it important to promote macro-regional strategies by setting up EGTCs;

15.

Emphasises the importance of promoting the development of culture, education and research and innovation as well as encouraging the Member States to enter into close cooperation particularly in the last-named area; recognises that in the area of education cooperation can certainly be highly beneficial, but that competence should remain with the Member States; recommends the strengthening of the strategic approach and long-term planning in respect of macro-regions;

16.

Guided by the principle of subsidiarity, and seeing the enormous potential for cooperation at local and regional level, underlines the considerable importance of creating an effective, multilevel structure for cooperation through the promotion of sectoral partnerships involving regular meetings of the policy-makers responsible, which will strengthen the responsibility shared between the various partner entities while safeguarding the organisational sovereignty of the Member States and regions; in this respect, calls for the cross-border cooperation mechanisms established at local and regional level to be improved, developed and strengthened;

17.

Stresses the fact that the new ‘macro-regional’ framework of cooperation has a strong ‘top-down’ approach, with the Member States having a decisive role in its development, and creates a new level of governance; in the framework of this new model of cooperation it has to be ensured that the natural handicaps of the peripheral regions are converted into assets and opportunities, and that the development of these regions is stimulated’;

18.

Considers that macro-regions combine the potential to optimise the response to the challenges appearing in a given region; with that of using the particular opportunities and resources of each region in an effective and efficient way;

19.

Calls on the European Commission to analyse the first results and experiences in connection with the implementation of the Strategy for the Baltic Sea Region, which will help to map out possible sources and methods for financing macro-regional strategies and help in using the example of the Strategy as a pilot project for other macro-regional strategies to demonstrate their functionality; stresses however that the development of macro-regions is essentially of a complementary nature and should not aim to replace EU financing of individual local and regional programmes as a funding priority;

20.

Notes that implementation of the Baltic Sea Strategy has as yet been very slow; considers that the appropriations earmarked in the 2010 EU budget may be used to improve implementation; regrets, therefore, that these appropriations have still not been disbursed and reminds the Commission of the importance of this money being allocated as soon as possible for purposes in line with the targets of the Baltic Sea Strategy;

21.

Draws attention, for the benefit of possible future macro-regional strategies, to the need for the European Commission to resolve the issue of its own resources in order to be able to anticipate such strategies on the basis of the territorial specificities of the regions concerned, providing the participating Member States with fresh ideas concerning topics of European interest and supporting them in drawing up a strategy; calls on the European Commission to supervise the implementation of these strategies by acting as a coordinator, rethinking new priorities and devoting resources according to specialised needs and expertise requirements, while avoiding duplication of work;

22.

Calls on the European Commission, in the context of the need to carry out an interim analysis of the implementation of the Strategy for the Baltic Sea Region, to prepare concrete instruments and criteria for evaluating projects based on indicators that allow comparisons to be made;

23.

Calls on the European Commission, the Member States and its own members to find answers to the questions concerning the nature of macro-regional policies and how they could be treated equally (separately or as part of cohesion policy), who should implement them and how, and with what sources of funding they should be financed in order not to create unnecessary multiplication and fragmentation of EU funding, in particular in the context of the EU2020 Strategy, the EU budget review and the debate on the future cohesion policy;

24.

Emphasises that the European added value of macro-regions lies in greater cooperation between states and regions, which is why the European Territorial Cooperation Programmes for cross-border, transnational and inter-regional cooperation represents an important element in implementing the macro-regions’ aims; furthermore proposes that the Strategy for the Baltic Sea Region should be regarded as a European Union strategy, based upon several EU policies, which should have a defined time frame and goals; given its horizontal nature, the strategy could be treated as macro-regional and its coordination brought under regional policy;

25.

Believes that the development of large-scale strategies, such as macro- regional strategies, should contribute to enhancing the role of the local and regional level in the implementation of EU policy more generally;

26.

Calls for improvement, in the context of the Strategy for Baltic Sea Region as well as of the future macro-regional strategies, of the relations between the European Union and the non-EU states, particularly in the implementation of large-scale projects with significant environmental impact; furthermore, calls for cooperation between the EU and non-EU states to strengthen security within the region and support the fight against cross-border crime;

27.

Draws attention to the need to seek greater cooperation particularly between Russia and Belarus, and the Baltic States when constructing the energy network, and to take greater advantage of the energy dialogue between the EU and Russia for this purpose, which would at the same time open up opportunities for involving Russia in the Baltic Sea Strategy; expects all actors around the Baltic Sea to join international agreements such as the Espoo Convention and the Helsinki Convention, comply with the Helsinki Commission (HELCOM) guidelines, and cooperate within this framework;

28.

Calls on the Commission to ensure effective cooperation and coordination with HELCOM and the Member States of the Baltic Sea Region, in order to secure a clear delineation of tasks and responsibilities as regards the implementation of the 2007 HELCOM Baltic Sea Action Plan and the above-mentioned EU Strategy and Action Plan, and thus to ensure an effective overall strategy for the Region;

29.

Specifically notes the status of the Kaliningrad Oblast enclave, which is surrounded by EU Member States; emphasises the need to stimulate social and economic development in this region, as a ‘gateway’ or ‘pilot’ region for a closer EU-Russia relationship involving NGOs, educational and cultural institutions and local and regional authorities;

30.

Believes that the new Partnership and Cooperation Agreement with Russia should take account of the cooperation in the Baltic Sea Area; welcomes the efforts by the Commission and the Member States in the region to cooperate with Russia on a vast number of areas, such as transport connections, tourism, cross-border health threats, environmental protection and adaptation to climate change, the environment, customs and border controls and, in particular, energy issues; believes that the EU-Russia common spaces will provide a valuable framework in this regard, and calls on Russia to play an equal part in such cooperation;

31.

Stresses the need to reduce the region’s dependence on Russian energy; welcomes the European Commission’s statement on the need for more interconnections between Member States in the region and greater diversification of energy supplies; calls in this regard for increased support for the creation of LNG ports;

32.

Believes that in order to achieve an effective protection of the environment and of biodiversity, agreements should be reached with the non-EU states that are part of the functional areas interested by the strategies, so that they can share the same values, rights and duties contained in the relevant European Union legislation;

33.

Considers that Baltic Sea Region Cooperation should be prioritised and should take place at the highest political level of Heads of State and Government, since it is crucial in driving forward cooperation between the Baltic Sea countries and ensuring that political ambitions are realised; looks to see regular meetings between the Heads of State and Government in the Baltic Sea region seeking to achieve this;

34.

Emphasises the need for an environmental impact assessment of energy infrastructure projects (currently under construction and in the future), taking into account, in particular international conventions; calls on the Commission to design an adequate reaction plan for technical accidents and any other possible catastrophes, providing also for ways of dealing with these events from an economic point of view; underlines that the same approach must be taken for any future project, so that the security of countries around the Baltic Sea involved in other future macro-regional strategies, environment and shipping conditions is not endangered; considers it is in the interests of sustainable development and green growth to achieve strong environmental protection in all macro-regions, as well as equal consideration for environmental protection, travel and other aspects;

35.

Emphasises the need to establish a Baltic Sea Environmental Monitoring Centre, an early-warning system for accidents and serious cross-border pollution, and a joint action force to deal with such situations;

36.

Draws attention to the strategic significance of the Baltic Sea region for the development of joint projects on energy infrastructure that improve diversification of energy production and supply, with a special emphasis on renewable energy projects such as wind farms (onshore or offshore), geothermal energy or biogas plants using biofuels available in the region;

37.

Draws attention to the effective cooperation already achieved in the energy and climate sector between the Council of the Baltic Sea States and the Nordic Council in the context of the Northern Dimension;

38.

Emphasises that, in view of the intended expansion of nuclear energy in the Baltic Sea region, EU countries have to follow the strictest safety and environmental standards and the European Commission has to watch and monitor whether the same approach and international conventions are followed in the neighbouring countries, especially in those which are planning to build nuclear power plants near external EU borders;

39.

Emphasises the need for the EU and its Member States surrounding the Baltic Sea Region urgently to address the serious environmental problems affecting the Region, principal among which are eutrophication, the impact of hazardous substances deposited on the seabed and threats to aquatic biodiversity, with particular regard to endangered fish populations; recalls that the Baltic Sea is one of the most polluted sea areas in the world;

40.

Emphasises the need to introduce a method common to all Member States for drawing up an inventory of sources of pollution and a plan for their gradual elimination;

41.

Welcomes the inclusion of environmental sustainability as a central pillar in the EU Strategy for the Baltic Sea Region and the accompanying action plan;

42.

Considers that one of the most serious obstacles to realising the objectives of the Baltic Sea Strategy is the lack of consistency with other policy areas within the EU such as the CAP which exacerbates eutrophication, and the Common Fisheries Policy (CFP) which is not environmentally sustainable; considers that reforms to the CAP and the CFP must be made in such a way that they contribute to achieving the objective of an environmentally sustainable Baltic Sea area;

43.

Emphasises that it is a priority to create an effective and environmentally friendly sea, land and inland transport and communication network (with the sea network giving a prominent role to the transport of goods) that can anticipate and respond in a timely fashion to current and future challenges, taking account of the provisions of the updated version of the Natura 2000 document and paying particular attention to links between the Baltic Sea region and other European regions through the Baltic-Adriatic Corridor and the Central European Transport Corridor;

44.

Considers enhanced connections, involving all modes of transport, to represent an essential contribution to the development of a stronger, more cohesive economy in the Baltic Sea Region;

45.

Stresses the specific situation of the Baltic States, which to a large extent are currently isolated from the European transport network, and takes the view that this strategy should, inter alia, help to address the lack of appropriate infrastructure and accessibility, as well as low interoperability between various national transport networks owing to different technical systems and administrative barriers, in order to develop a comprehensive multimodal transport system across the Baltic Sea Region;

46.

Emphasises the importance of integrating the Baltic Sea Region more closely into the TEN-T priority axes, in particular with regard to the Motorways of the Sea (TEN-T 21), extending the rail axis from Berlin to the Baltic coast (TEN-T 1), improving the rail axis from Berlin to the Baltic coast in combination with the Rostock-Denmark Seaway connection, and making more rapid progress in upgrading and using the Rail Baltica axis (TEN-T 27); also emphasises the need to complete the interconnections between the Baltic Sea Region and other European regions via the Baltic-Adriatic corridor;

47.

Stresses that it is important to enhance the Baltic Sea Region’s transport capacity towards the east, in particular in order to promote transport interoperability, especially for railways, and to speed up freight transit at the borders of the European Union;

48.

Believes that particular priority should be given to connections between harbours and inland regions, including by means of inland waterways, so as to ensure that all parts of the region can benefit from the growth of maritime cargo transport;

49.

Stresses, in this regard, the need for effective cross-border coordination and cooperation between rail, seaports, inland ports, hinterland terminals and logistics in order to develop a more sustainable intermodal transport system;

50.

Underlines the importance of short sea shipping in the Baltic Sea and its contribution to an efficient, environmentally-friendly transport network; points out that the competitiveness of short sea shipping links must be promoted in order to ensure efficient use of the sea; believes for this reason that the Commission needs to provide the European Parliament, as quickly as possible, but by the end of 2010 at the latest, with an impact assessment of the effects of the revised Annex VI to the MARPOL Convention, limiting sulphur in marine fuel oil to 0,1 % from 2015 in the areas of the North Sea and the Baltic Sea where sulphur emissions are being monitored;

51.

Welcomes the inclusion in the Commission’s action plan of the objective of making the Baltic Sea a model region for clean shipping and a world leader in maritime safety and security; considers these objectives to be crucial to maintaining and enhancing the region’s potential for tourism;

52.

Recognises the need for specific measures in support of this objective, including the appropriate use of nautical pilots or demonstrably experienced seafarers for the most challenging straits and ports and the establishment of reliable financing schemes for research and development on the sustainable operation of ships;

53.

Recognises that the geographical location of the Baltic Sea Region is exceptional, and that such a location provides opportunities to more actively develop ties with the EU and neighbouring external countries, and also stresses the importance of tourism to the regional economy and the scope for expansion; welcomes the declaration adopted at the 2nd Baltic Sea Tourism Forum, which referred to common promotional activities, efforts to find new international markets and infrastructure development;

54.

Underlines the unique opportunity for sustainable tourism offered by the attractiveness of the Hanseatic cities in the Baltic Region; supports, furthermore, the promotion of cross-border cycle tourism, thereby creating win-win effects for the environment and for small and medium-sized enterprises;

55.

Considers themes such as water sports, wellness and spa tourism, the cultural heritage and landscapes to offer great potential for developing the region’s profile as a tourist destination; stresses, therefore, the need to protect natural coastal areas, landscapes and the cultural heritage as a resource for ensuring a sustainable economy in the Baltic Sea Region in the future;

56.

Regards improvements in transport links and the elimination of bottlenecks to be of no less importance, and notes that border-crossing difficulties at checkpoints on the EU’s eastern border with the Russian Federation, which cause long queues of lorries and pose threats to the environment, social harmony, traffic safety and drivers’ safety, could be solved via this strategy in order to ensure the smooth flow of goods through the Baltic Sea Region;

57.

Instructs its President to forward this resolution to the Council, the Commission, national parliaments, and the governments of the Russian Federation, Belarus and Norway.

2.12.2011   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 351/8

A.

whereas between 2000 and 2006 15,2 % of Europeans (69,8 million) lived in Objective 2 areas and benefited from total financing of EUR 22,5 billion (9,6 % of total resources), with 730 000‘gross’ jobs being created, and most indicators showing high performance levels (employment, innovation, research and development (R&D), human capital intensity, education and training, lifelong learning) while, on the other hand, other indicators (foreign direct investment (FDI), productivity) show lower performance levels than those of the convergence regions, and, as regards growth of per capita GDP compared with the EU average, the regions in question are quite a long way ahead (122 %) of the convergence regions (59 %) but nevertheless show a fall of 4,4 % over that period,

B.

noting that, with the 2006 reform, Objective 2 now concerns strengthening regional competitiveness and employment in a total of 168 regions in 19 Member States, i.e. 314 million inhabitants, with total financing for 2007-2013 of EUR 54,7 billion (just under 16 % of overall resources), and, it is worth pointing out, around 74 % of that amount is earmarked for improving knowledge and innovation (33,7 %) and for more and better jobs (40 %),

C.

whereas, based on the latest Commission forecasts (2009-2011), the labour market situation will remain unfavourable and the unemployment rate will reach 10,25 % in the EU, with the loss of 2,25 % of jobs for 2009 and 1,25 % for 2010 and entailing inter alia an increase in social breakdown in the member countries; whereas the key sectors in the EU region show: (a) an increase in new orders and confidence, with an improvement in the overall EU industrial picture, although at a rate of production 20 % lower than at the start of 2008, (b) continued decline in activities in the manufacturing sector, and (c) continued difficulty for SMEs in accessing micro-credit/financing,

D.

whereas although it is true that initially the crisis affected men more, currently the rate of job loss is similar for men and women, and women’s presence in the labour market is lower than that of men in most countries of the EU; whereas we have learned from other crises that women who lose their jobs are more likely to be unable to find other work; whereas equality between men and women has a positive impact on productivity and economic growth, and participation of women in the labour market has many social and economic benefits,

E.

stressing the fact that, based on the National Strategic Reports for 2009, and the Strategic Report 2010 of the Commission regarding cohesion policy and the implementation of the programmes 2007-2013, the Member States appear to have made rather different uses of the instruments, means and methods for facilitating cohesion policy proposed by the Commission to combat the crisis and increase actual expenditure, such as changes to the strategic guidelines, the axes and financing for the operational programmes and the response to the simplification of implementing procedures,

F.

stressing that from October 2008 onwards the Commission proposed a series of measures aimed at speeding up implementation of programmes under the cohesion policy 2007-2013 in order to mobilise all its resources and means to provide immediate and effective support for recovery efforts at national and regional level,

G.

whereas the Commission strategy to accelerate investment and simplify cohesion policy programmes through recommendations to the Member States and legislative or non-legislative measures is built around three axes: (a) greater flexibility for cohesion programmes, (b) giving the regions a head start, and (c) smart investment for cohesion programmes; whereas for 2010, of the EUR 64,3 billion earmarked for employment and competitiveness, EUR 49,4 billion are to be used for cohesion (an increase of 2 % over 2009) and EUR 14,9 billion for competitiveness (an increase of 7,9 % over 2009),

1.

Stresses that, in the context of the global financial and economic crisis and the current economic slowdown, EU regional policy is a key delivery instrument, making a decisive contribution to the European Economic Recovery Plan, constituting the largest Community source of investment in the real economy and providing notable support for public investment, including at regional and local level; notes that it is essential to ensure a successful exit from the crisis in order to achieve long-term sustainable development by strengthening competitiveness, employment and the attractiveness of European regions;

2.

Notes that the Structural Funds are powerful instruments, designed for helping the regions in their economic and social restructuring and in promoting economic, social and territorial cohesion, as well as for implementation of the European Economic Recovery Plan and, in particular, development of competitiveness and job creation, by supporting their systematic and effective use; stresses that the aim of competitiveness cannot be attained to the detriment of cooperation and solidarity between regions;

3.

Is pleased to note the positive results with regard to most indicators observed in the period before the economic crisis in the Objective 2 regions, namely the high performance levels in employment, innovation, research and development (R&D), human capital intensity, education and training and lifelong learning; stresses that the impact of the crisis on the economy must not result in a reduction in support for more and better jobs, and calls for these comparative advantages to be sustained through a strengthening of the Objective 2 instruments;

4.

Warmly supports the key priorities of the EU 2020 strategy, particularly smart, sustainable, inclusive growth achieved, inter alia, by exploiting new ways of achieving sustainable economic growth via the digital economy, improving the regulatory framework for strengthening territorial and social cohesion and promoting better conditions and a better business environment with fair competition, job creation, entrepreneurship and innovation for all the regions, developing SMEs and supporting their growth potential; also supports the efforts towards more and better jobs, with decent working conditions for men and women and guaranteed access to basic and advanced training; calls for these policies to be strengthened further, including through measures to capitalise on the advantages offered by Europe’s single market within the framework of the forthcoming deepening of the EU 2020 strategy, while ensuring that Objective 2 remains focused on delivering EU territorial cohesion;

5.

Notes with concern the negative social consequences that have been brought about by the crisis in Objective 2 regions, with an increase in unemployment, poverty and social exclusion and harm to the most vulnerable social groups (the unemployed, women, the elderly), and calls on the Commission to take initiatives to support SMEs in securing the viability of existing jobs and creating, where possible, more new jobs;

6.

Emphasises that economic, social and territorial cohesion is at the heart of the EU2020 Strategy; cohesion policy and the structural funds are a key tool in achieving the priorities of smart, sustainable, inclusive growth in the Member States and the regions;

7.

Underlines the significant problem posed by the reduction in the contribution of national co-financing to programmes, which also has implications for Objective 2 owing to the major financial problems of many Member States, and supports Commission policy regarding the use of the Community contribution; considers it necessary, therefore, for the amendment of Regulation (EC) No 1083/2006 in its present form, as adopted by Parliament, to be speedily implemented, considers 100 % financing to be excessive, since it takes away the incentive for the Member States to ensure that the measures supported are effective and efficient through national co-financing, and concurs with the view taken by the Council in rejecting ‘frontloading’ as its stands;

8.

Notes that, out of a total of 117 operational programmes financed by the ESF, 13 were amended (for Austria, Germany, Hungary, Ireland, Latvia, Lithuania, the Netherlands, Poland, Portugal, two for the United Kingdom, and two for Spain) with the aim of tackling specific needs resulting from the crisis, and calls on the Commission to help the Member States use this flexibility to reorient their operational programmes, and to publicise the fact widely among the relevant regional and local actors as quickly as possible with a view to providing short-term assistance to specific at-risk groups and categories;

9.

Notes that the Sixth progress report on economic and social cohesion reflects the different socioeconomic situations in the three types of region, particularly with regard to their capacity for creativity, innovation and entrepreneurship. Both the current economic crisis and the different variables which affect the opportunities for regional development (demography, accessibility, capacity for innovation, etc.) provide evidence of the existence of important data that must be taken into consideration when assessing the situation of local and regional economies and formulating an effective cohesion policy;

10.

Supports the Council’s proposal to increase advances for 2010 by 4 % in the case of the ESF and by 2 % in the case of the Cohesion Fund, but only for Member States whose GDP has fallen by more than two digits or which have received IMF balance-of-payments support; calls on the Commission to study the causes of the delays in implementation and to find flexible solutions for the n+2/n+3 rules, so that funds are not forfeited to the Member States;

11.

Regrets the fact that the Sixth progress report from the Commission on economic and social cohesion does not include specific qualitative and quantitative data on the short-term and long-term impact of the financial and economic crisis in the EU regions, particularly with regard to the most significant economic and social indicators; therefore calls on the Commission to present a special report/study on the effects of the financial and economic crisis in the EU regions, in particular the Objective 2 regions and phasing-out regions, as well as on a possible widening or narrowing of regional disparities in the context of the crisis; notes that those evaluations must be carried out without delay in order to be able to counter undesirable developments and that they can be used as the basis for a proposal on the continuation of Objective 2 in those areas where it can provide added value regarding national funds;

12.

Welcomes the support measures for undertakings under the cohesion policy (approximately EUR 55 billion between 2007 and 2013), most of which relates to strengthening innovation, technology transfer and modernisation of SMEs, stresses the importance of promoting successful models in this area and understands that the proposed measures under the intervention in favour of undertakings must be targeted at their long-term restructuring outcomes and the transition to a more sustainable economy, and not at fire-fighting interventions for economic survival, which in many cases are incompatible with State aid policies;

13.

Emphasises that, in order to tackle the crisis, investment is needed in research and development, innovation, education and technologies that use resources efficiently; such investment will benefit traditional sectors, rural areas and highly skilled service economies and will therefore strengthen economic, social and territorial cohesion; notes that it is necessary to provide for an affordable, accessible funding mechanism in which the structural funds play a key role;

14.

Calls on the Commission and the Member States to monitor, on a continuous basis, the impact of the crisis in various structural and development fields and the use made of the opportunities offered by the financing instruments earmarked for Objective 2 primarily to support entrepreneurship and SMEs and bodies working for a social, inclusive economy, with a view to increasing their competitiveness and thus the potential for greater employment, and facilitating their access to financial engineering instruments (Jaspers, Jeremie, Jessica, Jasmine); calls on the Commission and the Member States to use this evidence to prepare and target the future Objective 2 EU Cohesion to those areas, at regional and local level, where added value of EU interventions can be demonstrated (in particular innovations in the tourism, service, IT, and industrial sectors, alongside protection and improvement of the environment and the potential development of renewable energy or technologies that would significantly improve conventional energy undertakings, targeting low emissions and minimising waste production, as well as innovations in the primary sector);

15.

Calls on the Commission and the Member States to utilise and promote all synergies of tools for cohesion policy and competitiveness at a regional, national, cross-border and European level;

16.

Welcomes Commission policy on (a) extending the eligibility period under the operational programmes 2000-2006 to allow maximum take-up of all cohesion policy resources, (b) simplifying the administrative requirements and procedures and the financial management of the programmes, while at the same time still ensuring the necessary checking for any instances of errors or fraud; takes the view in this connection that conditions should be created with a view to encouraging reasonable projects and preventing unlawful behaviour in advance;

17.

Supports the ‘pre-financing’ policy for programmes under the cohesion policy 2007-2013, which produced immediate liquidity of EUR 6,25 billion for 2009 for investment within the framework of the financing packages agreed for each Member State;

18.

Notes that urban regions and urban centres present, by their very nature, particular and significant social problems (high unemployment, marginalisation, social exclusion etc.), which have increased owing to the impact of the crisis and which must be studied carefully in order to take appropriate action and both short- and long-term measures;

19.

Supports the assistance policy and the new financing instruments for major projects for the regions (planned total cost of EUR 50 million and above) introduced by the Commission in 2009, values the importance of financial engineering instruments and EIB/EIF cooperation, especially JASPERS, JEREMIE AND JESSICA, and calls for a further increase beyond 25 % in the financing provided through JASPERS (Joint Assistance in Supporting Projects in European Regions) that relates specifically to the regions in Objective 2, with a view to encouraging their full preparation and very rapid implementation even though, at the present stage, these projects remain few in number; hopes that the previous increase in financing for JASPERS has a medium- and long-term impact on the growth of the economic competitiveness of European regions, and advocates the regular inclusion of a comparative analysis of the results obtained and objectives pursued, and of the financing awarded and the financing required to fulfil the respective objectives;

20.

Stresses that only with genuinely integrated multi-level governance among local, regional, national, cross-border and EU public authorities can EU, national and regional policy be efficient and effective; calls on the Commission to evaluate the possibilities of innovation-related territorial cooperation, both national and international, in each cohesion policy objective, and to analyse the possibilities for reinforcing the European territorial cooperation objective with regard to fostering innovation-related cooperation between regions; in parallel with the reinforcement of the Territorial Cooperation Objective (Objective 3), the possibility of developing transnational territorial cooperation actions in the framework of Objective 2 should also be reinforced; notes that such a possibility is now made possible by Article 37(6)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 1083/2006; is of the opinion that, without changing the overall cohesion objectives’ budget, the reinforcement of territorial cooperation should be accompanied by a move towards an increased budget for this extended territorial cooperation;

21.

Supports the proposed changes to the implementing rules aimed at strengthening the flexibility of the Structural Funds and their adaptation to meet the need, in the exceptional economic circumstances, for immediate implementation of 455 programmes under the cohesion policy, in particular as regards Objective 2 programmes, while still taking account of the need for national and regional institutions and managing authorities to adapt to this new situation so as to prevent any mismanagement or misuse of funds and to ensure that any remaining funds are redirected to existing or upcoming projects; calls for the managing authorities to propose ways of making the implementation of Objective 2 operational programmes more efficient;

22.

Insists that in special circumstances (such as the economic crisis) greater flexibility can be exceptionally required in the N+2 rule in view of the objectives pursued by the cohesion policy and the effects of cyclical economic changes on public finances and private investment;

23.

Recommends that all funds that remain unspent in a region under N+2 and N+3 are allocated again to regionally based projects and community initiatives;

24.

Calls on the Commission to evaluate the Small Business Act action plan/initiative for legislative proposals after a year of implementation (December 2008), primarily as regards results in strengthening small businesses’ competitiveness and access to financing and operating capital, as well as promoting innovative start-ups, reducing administrative burdens, etc.;

25.

Emphasises the positive effect which equality between men and women has on economic growth; notes in that regard that some studies calculate that if the rates of employment, part-time employment and productivity of women were similar to those of men, GDP would increase by 30 % in the programming period beyond 2013; therefore requests special scrutiny for those projects financed under the structural funds which promote equality and the inclusion of women in the labour market;

26.

Instructs its President to forward this resolution to the Council, the Commission and the Member States.

2.12.2011   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 351/13

A.

whereas the transport sector is an important element in the development of the European Union and its regions and cities, and one which has a direct influence on the competitiveness and social cohesion of the regions and cities and thereby makes a significant contribution to achieving the European single market,

B.

whereas transport has a triple role: an economic role, a social role and a territorial cohesion role, all of which are essential for European integration,

C.

whereas the transport sector plays a key role in the economy and employment, given that it represents 10 % of the EU’s prosperity (viewed in terms of gross domestic product) and provides over 10 million jobs and will therefore have a crucial role in the implementation of the EU 2020 strategy,

D.

whereas transport is an essential element of European policy, and whereas, therefore, the EU needs a financial framework that responds to the transport policy challenges in the years ahead, stimulates the economy in the short term, increases productivity in the medium and long term and strengthens Europe as a research location,

E.

whereas the transport sector has a considerable impact on the environment and on people’s health and quality of life, and, whilst facilitating people’s private and professional mobility, was responsible, as a whole, for 27 % of total CO2 emissions in 2008, and whereas this figure has since risen even further; whereas road transport accounted for 70,9 %, aviation for 12,5 %, sea and inland waterways for 15,3 % and railways for 0,6 % of total CO2 emissions from the transport sector in 2007,

F.

whereas in Europe all modes of transport have made efforts to improve safety; whereas, however, in 2008 approximately 39 000 people died in traffic accidents and 300 000 people were seriously injured, which means that further efforts are required as regards all aspects of safety, notably road safety,

G.

whereas the EU undertook, in the climate change package, to achieve a 20 % reduction in greenhouse gas emissions by 2020 compared to 1990, which remains a binding target,

H.

whereas the goals set in the 2001 White Paper have been attained only in part, so that the question of whether they should be maintained or reformulated needs to be examined, and, where proven necessary, efforts to achieve those goals need to be strengthened,

I.

whereas problems with transposition, such as late or incorrect transposition, have a considerable impact on the effectiveness of European legislation; whereas, therefore, there is an urgent need for action in this regard,

J.

whereas Parliament’s work must be consistent, particularly in areas which affect transport policy directly such as, for example, environment and social policy, urban and land use planning and employment and economic policy,

K.

whereas the financial and economic crisis has hit the transport sector hard, a situation which should, however, be taken as an opportunity to support and promote the transport industry in a forward-looking way, especially through promoting the sustainability of transport modes and investments in, among other things, rail and waterway transport; whereas this will ensure a more level playing field in the market,

L.

whereas, as part of the forthcoming review of the agencies, agencies’ added value has to be analysed, as does the need to set up a European transport agency,

M.

whereas it is vital for measurable targets to be set for the transport sector, as a way of both monitoring the efficiency of transport policy more effectively and establishing social and economic planning guidelines, as well as demonstrating that the proposed measures are necessary for the implementation of the transport policy put in place,

N.

whereas significant developments in research, infrastructure and technology require adjustments to be made to financial resources and instruments,

O.

whereas developments in society and in a wide range of economic sectors are giving rise to increased demand in the transport sector, as a result of which all means of transport are vital; whereas, however, these should be measured according to their efficiency in economic, environmental, social and employment policy terms,

P.

whereas, in the future, the sustainable interworking of all modes of passenger and freight transport will be necessary in order to achieve safe, sustainable, logistically consistent and therefore efficient transport chains, including multi-modal solutions and the linking of local and long-distance transport,

1.

Is convinced that EU policy in general needs a clear and coherent vision of the future of transport as a sector at the core of the single market, guaranteeing free movement of persons and goods and ensuring territorial cohesion throughout Europe; takes the view that, while continuing to generate a significant part of Europe’s sustainable growth and competitiveness, the transport sector must guarantee economic efficiency and develop within consistently high social and environmental standards;

2.

Is convinced that demographic change, in particular in urban areas, will give rise to safety and capacity challenges for transport and mobility, and that the basic right to mobility, ensured by, among other things, improved accessibility and the construction of missing infrastructure links, and the applicability of this right, are crucial in this regard; stresses that, in this context, well-integrated multimodal transport chains including walking and cycling and public transport are the way ahead for urban areas; points out in that connection that in urban areas the existing structure in particular will determine which mode is most appropriate; considers that good public transport links in rural areas will cut down on private car use; calls, in the interest of creating coherent urban and suburban transport systems and retaining the rural population, for the formation of Functional Urban Regions;

3.

Asks the Commission to introduce Sustainable Urban Mobility Plans (SUMPs) for cities of more than 100 000 inhabitants and, with due respect for the principle of subsidiarity, encourage cities to draw up mobility plans which propose an integrated transport concept with the objective of reducing environmental damage and making mobility healthier and more efficient;

4.

Considers that increasing demand also results, inter alia, in a strain on capacity and reduced efficiency due to infrastructure problems in the field of freight transport, that, primarily, comodal use and the safety of transport users and transported goods should therefore be increased and that a fundamental improvement of the infrastructure, in particular the elimination of bottlenecks known about for years, is essential;

5.

Stresses that decarbonising transport is one of the main challenges of future EU transport policy and that all available, sustainable means should be used in order to achieve this, such as an energy mix promoting the research and development of more environmentally friendly technologies and modes, price formation measures and the internalisation of the external costs of all modes of transport, provided that the revenue generated at EU level is used to improve the sustainability of mobility and measures are taken to adapt the behaviour of transport users and professionals (awareness-raising, environmentally friendly behaviour, etc.); underlines that, to this end, the priority development of financial incentives ruling out any distortions of competition between modes of transport and Member States in the process should be undertaken;

6.

Recognises that, according to the International Maritime Organisation (IMO), maritime transport emits 3 to 5 times less CO2 than land transport but is concerned about the expected emissions of SOx and NOx from maritime transport, which will be approximately equivalent to land-based transport by 2020, and the inconclusive attempt by the IMO to put in place a CO2 emission reduction system;

7.

Stresses the need for the general public to be better informed about the consequences of leisure-time travel and calls on the Commission to consider leisure-time travel in its policy approach;

8.

Emphasises that safety must continue to be one of the priority objectives of the future transport policy and that the safety of active and passive users of all transport modes has to be guaranteed; considers it to be of the utmost importance to reduce the health effects of transport, especially through the use of modern technologies, and to ensure the rights of passengers in all transport modes, particularly those with reduced mobility, by means of clear and transparent regulations; supports the creation of a charter of passengers’ rights in the European Union;

9.

Calls on the Commission to present a very brief study detailing the best practices of the Member States concerning the impact of speed limiters for all types of vehicles and roads, both urban and inter-urban, with a view to presenting legislative measures aimed at reducing emissions and improving road safety;

10.

Underlines the necessity of guaranteeing both personal safety and legal certainty for workers in the transport sector by, among other things, creating a sufficient number of safe and secure parking places and harmonising the enforcement of road transport rules and the sanctions for which they provide; stresses also that the introduction of cross-border enforcement of sanctions will improve road safety for all users;

11.

Draws attention to the fact that the provision of parking areas in the trans-European road network (TERN) has not kept pace with the increase in road freight transport, which means that compliance with the permissible driving times and rest periods established for professional drivers, especially during night-time hours, and road safety more generally, will be seriously compromised unless the quality and quantity of rest facilities are improved in the EU Member States;

12.

Considers that the development of passenger and freight transport as a whole is largely dependent on effective use of the various modes of transport, and that the goal of European transport policy should therefore be efficient comodality, which is closely linked to the decarbonisation, safety and economic aspects of transport; believes that this will lead to an optimal reallocation between the different transport modes and a shift towards more sustainable transport modes, and will provide for interoperability within and between the modes, promote more sustainable transport and logistics chains and modal choices and enhance seamless traffic flows across modes and nodes;

13.

Stresses that efficient comodality should be measured not only in terms of cost-effectiveness but also according to criteria of environmental protection, social and employment conditions, safety and territorial cohesion, with attention also being paid to the different technical possibilities and starting levels of the different modes of transport and of the countries, regions and cities in Europe;

14.

Underlines that efficient comodality means improving infrastructure – among other things by developing green corridors, reducing bottlenecks and improving rail and waterway transport –, advancing safety through new technologies and improving working conditions;

15.

Calls for regular reviews of European legislation and its transposition and implementation, with a view to guaranteeing the effectiveness thereof; calls on the Commission consistently to remove the obstacles caused by incorrect or late transposition of European legislation in the Member States;

16.

Proposes that in the new framework of the Lisbon Treaty, and with the Commission’s consent, at least one joint meeting be held every year with representatives of the national parliaments responsible for transport, with a view to sharing and cooperating to ensure better, more effective implementation of EU transport legislation;

17.

Considers that transport plays an essential role in completing the European single market and freedom of movement for persons and goods, and that regulated market opening should be achieved, primarily in the rail transport sector, in all EU Member States; takes the view that this complete market opening will benefit consumers and should be accompanied by measures safeguarding the quality of public services, as well as a long-term investment plan for infrastructure and technical interoperability in order to improve efficiency and safety and measures aimed at avoiding distortions of intra-modal and inter-modal competition, inter alia in the social, fiscal, safety and environmental fields; the internalisation of external social and environmental costs should be carried out gradually, starting with the more polluting road and air transport modes;

18.

Calls on the Commission and on Member State authorities to facilitate the completion of the liberalisation of cabotage transport, to reduce the prevalence of empty mileage and to provide for a more sustainable road and rail network in the form of more freight transport hubs;

19.

Believes it essential, in order to achieve an efficient maritime transport system that complements other modes, to focus once again on a clear liberalisation process enabling it to be truly competitive;

20.

Underlines, with regard to the economic requirements, the importance of genuinely European management of transport infrastructure (freight and passenger rail transport corridors, Single European Sky, ports and their connections with the transport network, maritime area without borders, inland waterways) with a view to eliminating the ‘border effect’ in all transport modes and enhancing the EU’s competitiveness and appeal;

21.

Calls for the establishment of a common European reservation system in order to enhance the effectiveness of the various modes of transport and to simplify and increase their interoperability;

22.

Underlines that transport has an impact on social, health and security policy and that, in the context of creating a single transport area, employment and working conditions and education and training must be harmonised at a high level and must be continually improved on the basis of an effective social dialogue at European level; stresses that the creation of, inter alia, European training centres and EU centres of excellence in the relevant Member States can contribute to promoting the measurable quality of training and the status of transport sector employees, as well as to the mutual recognition of training courses;

23.

Considers that, in order to achieve greater effectiveness in transport policy, there is a need to evaluate programmes (such as Galileo and ITS for all transport modes) and, depending on the results, strategy and programming should be reoriented as appropriate; sees a consequent need for, among other things, a new road traffic safety programme, further revitalisation of the TEN-Ts, a mid-term review of NAIADES, the urgent and full implementation of the Single European Sky programme, SESAR and the Eight Framework Programme for Research and the continuation of Marco Polo in a simplified form;

24.

Is of the view that technical interoperability and its financing, European certification, standardisation and mutual recognition are essential elements of an effectively functioning single market, and that their enforcement should figure more prominently among the tasks of the various agencies; underlines that all the agencies should strive for, and swiftly attain, a similarly high level of responsibility and competence and should be evaluated regularly; encourages in particular the development of the full potential of the European Railway Agency, including the progressive assumption by the agency of responsibility for certifying all new rolling stock and railway infrastructure and for regular audits of national safety authorities or equivalent bodies in the Member States, as laid down in Directive 2004/49/EC of 29 April 2004;

25.

Underlines that 75 % of transport is road-based, and asks for consideration to be given to the need for an agency for road transport, in particular to improve road safety and also to guarantee people’s fundamental right to safe mobility by supporting new applications (such as Galileo or equally suitable technologies for intelligent transport systems) and conducting research programmes; considers, in addition, that this agency should be able to take regulatory action if obstacles to a sustainable single market need to be removed;

26.

Points out that inland waterway transport is still confronted with a disparate institutional framework and requests the establishment of permanent and structured cooperation between the competent institutions in order to fully exploit the potential of this mode of transport;

27.

Calls for a research and technology agenda for the transport sector; considers that this agenda should be drawn up in cooperation with all relevant stakeholders in order to understand the needs of the sector and, accordingly, improve the allocation of EU funding; takes the view that priority should be given to projects to decarbonise transport, increase the transparency of the supply chain and transport safety and security, improve traffic management and reduce administrative burdens;

28.

Emphasises that research and development and innovation require support, since they lead to considerable environmental improvements in all transport modes due to a reduction in exhaust gases and traffic noise, improve safety by creating solutions to ensure better use of existing infrastructure capacity and to reduce traffic bottlenecks, and, not least, result in increased energy independence across the modes in the entire transport network; stresses in this respect that intelligent, interoperable and connected transport organisation and safety systems, such as ERTMS, Galileo, SESAR, ITS and equally appropriate technologies, require support in terms of research and development as well as in their application; calls on the Member States to ensure that all citizen across Europe benefit from these intelligent transport systems; notes that the necessary framework conditions and open standards must be introduced for promising technologies, without giving an undue advantage to any specific technology;

29.

Underlines that within the framework of climate protection and EU energy independence, each transport mode should reduce its CO2 emissions and be supported by research and development in innovative, energy-efficient and clean technologies and renewable energies which leads to, among other things, more sustainable vehicles in all transport modes; considers that this would at the same time strengthen the competitiveness of European companies;

30.

Emphasises the need for a uniform definition of relevant terms relating to road safety and accident research, in order to ensure comparability of findings and of any measures that may be implemented;

31.

Stresses that harmonising transport documents in line with the latest communication standards, as well as their multimodal and international applicability, can result in a considerable improvement in safety and logistics and a drastic reduction in the administrative burden;

32.

Emphasises that an efficient transport policy requires a financial framework that is appropriate to the challenges arising and that, to that end, the current resources for transport and mobility should be increased; considers the following to be necessary:

33.

Calls for a coherent and integrated transport policy promoting, inter alia, transport by rail and ship, port policy and public transport by means of financial support which is not measured by competitiveness criteria in line with EU rules on state aids;

34.

Considers that the financial and economic crisis must serve as an opportunity to give targeted support to the field of transport and to promote investment in, first and foremost, safe, environment-friendly and therefore sustainable transport through the provision of financial assistance; takes the view that EU investments in transport projects should be taken into consideration in the context of the EU 2020 strategy, since transport and mobility systems afford unique opportunities for creating stable jobs;

35.

Is convinced that the definition of a European core network within the overall TEN network, which remains a priority of EU transport policy, should be evaluated according to criteria relating to sustainable development at European and also regional and local levels, and that multimodal platforms and dry ports remain an essential element of infrastructure supply, since they enable effective interconnections to be made between different modes of transport;

36.

Is of the opinion that TEN-T projects should remain a priority of EU transport policy and that there is an urgent need to tackle the lack of infrastructure and to overcome the historical and geographical obstacles that remain at borders; underlines that TEN-T should be integrated into a pan-European network with links extending beyond the EU, and considers that this process can be accelerated by stepping up funding;

37.

Calls for inland waterway transport infrastructure, inland ports and the multimodal linking of sea ports with the hinterland and rail connections to be given a greater role in European transport policy, as well as greater support, in order to help reduce the environmental impact and increase the safety of EU transport; considers that the environmental performance of inland waterway vessels can be radically improved if new engines equipped with the latest emission control technology are installed;

38.

Highlights the need to look at short-sea-shipping and sea-highway projects in a broader context embracing the countries in Europe’s immediate geographical environment; points out that this will require a better synergy to be achieved between regional policy, development policy and transport policy;

39.

Recognises that regional airports play a crucial role in the development of peripheral and outermost regions by increasing their connectivity with hubs; considers it particularly useful to apply intermodal solutions where possible; takes the view that (high-speed) rail links between airports offer an ideal opportunity to sustainably link different modes of transport;

40.

Stresses that the creation of a European transport area is an important priority which depends to a large extent on international acceptance under agreements which have yet to be negotiated for all transport modes, particularly in connection with air and sea transport, and that the EU should play an increasingly formative role in the relevant international bodies;

41.

Calls for compliance with clearer, more measurable targets to be achieved in 2020 with reference to 2010, and therefore proposes the following:

42.

Calls on the Commission to monitor progress towards reaching these targets and to report annually to Parliament thereon;

43.

Instructs its President to forward this resolution to the Council and the Commission.

2.12.2011   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 351/23

A.

whereas the activity of the Committee on Petitions in 2009 was marked by the transition from the sixth to the seventh parliamentary term, and membership of the Committee changed considerably, with two thirds of members sitting for the first time,

B.

whereas 2009 marked the end of the European Ombudsman’s term of office and the Committee on Petitions was directly involved in the hearings of candidates for the position,

C.

whereas the Treaty of Lisbon came into force on 1 December 2009, creating the necessary premises for increased participation by citizens in the EU decision-making process, in an effort to reinforce its legitimacy and accountability,

D.

whereas citizens of the EU are directly represented by Parliament, and the right of petition as enshrined in the Treaty offers them the means to address their representatives whenever they consider that their rights have been infringed,

E.

whereas enforcement of European legislation has a direct impact on citizens, who are the best placed to assess its effectiveness and its shortcomings and to signal remaining gaps that need to be filled in order to ensure adherence to the Union’s objectives,

F.

bearing in mind that European citizens, individually and collectively, turn to Parliament for redress when European law is broken,

G.

whereas Parliament, through its Committee on Petitions, has an obligation to investigate such concerns and to do its best to bring such breaches of the law to an end; whereas, in order to offer citizens the most appropriate and rapid remedies, the Committee on Petitions has continued to reinforce its cooperation with the Commission, other parliamentary committees, European bodies, agencies and networks, and Member States,

H.

whereas the number of petitions received by Parliament in 2009 was slightly higher than that recorded in 2008 (i.e. 1924 compared with 1849), and the growing trend for petitions to be submitted electronically was confirmed (about 65 % were received in this form in 2009 as against 60 % in 2008),

I.

whereas the number of inadmissible petitions received in 2009 indicates that additional emphasis should be placed on informing citizens better about the competences of the Union and the role of its various institutions,

J.

whereas, in many instances, citizens petition Parliament about decisions taken by the competent administrative or judicial authorities within Member States, and whereas citizens need mechanisms through which they can call national authorities to account for their part in both the European legislative process and in the legislative enforcement process,

K.

whereas citizens should, in particular, be made aware that – as recognised by the European Ombudsman in the decision of December 2009 closing the inquiry into complaint 822/2009/BU against the Commission – national court proceedings are part of the process of implementing European legislation in the Member States, and that the Committee on Petitions cannot deal with issues subject to national court proceedings or review the outcome of such proceedings,

L.

whereas the high costs of court procedures, particularly in some Member States, can constitute an obstacle for citizens and might actually prevent them from bringing actions before the competent national courts when they consider that national authorities have not respected their rights under EU law,

M.

whereas Parliament faces a particular problem when petitioned on alleged failures by the national judiciary to request a preliminary ruling from the Court of Justice in disregard of Article 267 TFEU, especially if the Commission does not use its powers under Article 258 to taken action against the Member State in question,

N.

whereas the petitions process – through its working mechanisms and because the right to petition is granted to all EU citizens and residents under the terms of the Treaty – differs from other remedies available to citizens at EU level, such as the submission of complaints to the European Ombudsman or to the Commission,

O.

whereas citizens are entitled to speedy and solution-oriented redress and to a high level of transparency and clarity from all European institutions and whereas Parliament has repeatedly requested the Commission to use its prerogatives as guardian of the Treaty to act against breaches of European legislation revealed by petitioners, especially where transposition of EU legislation at national level results in its infringement,

P.

whereas many petitions continue to raise concerns about the transposition and implementation of European legislation on the internal market and the environment, and bearing in mind the previous calls made by the Committee on Petitions to the Commission to ensure that enforcement checks in these areas are strengthened and made more efficient,

Q.

whereas, although the Commission can fully check compliance with EU law only when a final decision has been taken by national authorities, it is important, particularly in relation to environmental matters and all cases in which the time aspect is especially significant, to verify at an early stage that local, regional and national authorities correctly apply all relevant procedural requirements under EU law and, when necessary, to carry out detailed studies on the application and impact of the legislation in force, in order to obtain all the requisite information,

R.

bearing in mind the importance of preventing further irreparable losses in biodiversity, especially inside Natura 2000 designated sites, and the commitment by Member States to ensure the protection of special conservation areas under the Habitats Directive (92/43/EEC) and the Birds Directive (79/409/EEC),

S.

whereas petitions highlight the impact of European legislation on the everyday lives of EU citizens, and recognising the need to take all necessary steps to consolidate the progress achieved in reinforcing citizens’ EU rights,

T.

whereas, in its previous activity report and its opinion on the Commission’s annual report on monitoring the application of Community law, the Committee on Petitions requested to be kept informed regularly about the stages reached in infringement procedures the subject of which is also covered by petitions,

U.

bearing in mind that Member States have the primary responsibility for correctly transposing and enforcing European legislation, and recognising that many of them have been increasingly involved in the work of the Committee on Petitions in 2009,

1.

Welcomes the smooth transition to the new parliamentary term and notes that much of work of the Committee on Petitions, unlike that of other parliamentary committees, was carried over into the new term because examination of a considerable number of petitions had not been completed;

2.

Welcomes the entry into force of the Lisbon Treaty and is confident that Parliament will be closely involved in the development of the new citizens’ initiative so that this instrument can fully achieve its purpose and ensure enhanced transparency and accountability in the EU decision-making process, allowing citizens to suggest improvements or additions to EU law;

3.

Welcomes the Green Paper on a European Citizens’ Initiative (1), published by the Commission at the end of 2009, as a first step towards translating the concept into practice;

4.

Points out that Parliament has received campaign-type petitions bearing more than one million signatures and insists on the need to ensure that citizens are made fully aware of the distinction between this type of petition and the citizens’ initiative;

5.

Recalls its resolution on the citizens’ initiative (2), to which the Committee on Petitions contributed an opinion; urges the Commission establish comprehensible implementing rules which identify clearly the roles and obligations of the institutions involved in the examination and decision-making processes;

6.

Welcomes the legally binding force acquired by the Charter of Fundamental Rights with the entry into force of the Lisbon Treaty and underlines the importance of the Charter in making fundamental rights clearer and more visible to all citizens;

7.

Considers that both the Union and its Member States have an obligation to ensure that the fundamental rights included in the Charter are fully observed, and trusts that the Charter will help to develop the concept of citizenship of the Union;

8.

Trusts that all necessary procedural steps will be taken to ensure that the institutional aspects of EU accession to the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms are rapidly clarified, and notes the intention of the Committee on Petitions to contribute to Parliament’s work on this matter;

9.

Recalls its previous request that a full review of the redress procedures available to EU citizens should be carried out by the relevant services of Parliament and the Commission and underscores the importance of pursuing the negotiations on the revised Framework Agreement between the European Parliament and the Commission in order to take full account of the increased rights of EU citizens particularly with regard to the European citizens’ initiative;

10.

Welcomes the steps taken by the Commission to streamline the existing public assistance services, in order to inform citizens about their EU rights and the means of redress available in case of infringement, by regrouping the various relevant webpages (such as those of SOLVIT and ECC-Net) under the Your EU Rights chapter on the main EU website;

11.

Points out that Parliament has repeatedly called on the Commission to develop a system for clearly signposting the various complaints mechanisms available to citizens and believes that further steps are needed, with the ultimate aim of converting the Your EU Rights webpage into a user-friendly, online one-stop shop; looks forward to initial assessments of the implementation of its 2008 Action Plan (3), which are expected in 2010;

12.

Recalls its resolution on the activities of the European Ombudsman in 2008 and encourages the newly re-elected Ombudsman to keep working to enhance the openness and accountability of European administration and to ensure that decisions are taken as openly as possible and at the closest possible level to citizens;

13.

Reaffirms its determination to support the Ombudsman’s office in its efforts to raise public awareness of its work and to identify and act against instances of maladministration by European institutions; believes that the Ombudsman represents a valuable source of information in the overall endeavour to improve European administration;

14.

Notes that petitions received in 2009, almost 40 % of which were deemed inadmissible, continued to focus on environment, fundamental rights, justice and the internal market; in terms of geographical focus, most of the petitions concerned the Union as a whole – followed by Germany, Spain, Italy and Romania – demonstrating that citizens do keep a watchful eye on the Union’s work and turn to it for action;

15.

Acknowledges the importance of the work of petitioners and of its Committee on Petitions for the protection of the Union’s environment; welcomes the initiative of the committee in ordering a study on the application of the Habitats Directive, in anticipation of the International Year of Biodiversity, and considers it a useful tool for evaluating the EU biodiversity strategy to date and drafting a new strategy;

16.

Observes that more and more petitions are highlighting the problems encountered by citizens who exercise their right to free movement; such petitions refer to the excessive length of time taken by host Member States in delivering residence permits to third-country family members, and to difficulties in exercising voting rights and having qualifications recognised;

17.

Reiterates its previous calls on the Commission to put forward practical proposals to extend consumer protection against unfair commercial practices to small businesses, as requested in its resolution on misleading directory companies (4), as the Committee continues to receive petitions from victims of business-directory scams;

18.

Acknowledges the central role that the Commission plays in the work of the Committee on Petitions, which continues to rely on its expertise when assessing petitions, identifying breaches of European legislation and seeking redress, and recognises the efforts made by the Commission to improve its overall response time to the Committee’s requests for investigations so that cases reported by citizens can be resolved as quickly as possible;

19.

Encourages the Commission to intervene at an early stage whenever petitions signal potential damage to specially protected areas, by reminding the national authorities concerned of their commitments to ensure the integrity of sites classified as Natura 2000 under Directive 92/43/EEC (Habitats) and, where necessary, by taking preventive measures to ensure compliance with European legislation;

20.

Welcomes the newly elected Commissioners – especially the Commissioner responsible for inter-institutional relations and administration – and trusts that they will cooperate with the Committee on Petitions as closely and effectively as possible and will respect it as one of the most important channels of communication between citizens and European institutions;

21.

Regrets that the Commission has yet to address the Committee’s repeated calls for official and regular updates on the progress of infringement proceedings relating to open petitions; notes that the monthly publication of Commission decisions on infringement proceedings – in accordance with Articles 258 and 260 of the Treaty – although praiseworthy in terms of transparency does not represent an adequate answer to such requests;

22.

Believes that tracking down infringement proceedings by following the Commission’s press releases and matching them to certain petitions would unnecessarily waste the Committee’s time and resources, especially in the case of horizontal infringements, and asks that the Commission inform the Petitions Committee of any relevant infringement proceedings;

23.

Reiterates its belief that EU citizens should benefit from the same level of transparency from the Commission whether they make a formal complaint or submit a petition to Parliament and calls on the Commission, once again, to ensure that greater recognition is given to the petitions process and to its role in bringing to light breaches of European legislation, in respect of which infringement proceedings are subsequently launched;

24.

Recalls that, in many instances, petitions uncover problems related to the transposition and enforcement of European legislation and recognises that launching infringement proceedings does not necessarily provide citizens with immediate solutions to their problems, given the average length of such proceedings;

25.

Welcomes the Commission’s efforts to develop alternative means of promoting better implementation of European legislation, and the positive attitude of certain Member States which take the necessary steps to correct breaches at the early stages of the implementation process;

26.

Welcomes the increased involvement of Member States in the activity of the Committee on Petitions and the presence of their representatives at meetings; believes that such cooperation should be strengthened as the national authorities are primarily responsible for enforcing European legislation once it has been transposed into their legal order;

27.

Stresses that closer cooperation with the Member States is extremely important for the work of the Petitions Committee; believes that one way of achieving this could be through more intensive cooperation with the national parliaments especially in the context of the Lisbon Treaty;

28.

Encourages Member States to be prepared to play a more transparent and proactive part in responding to petitions related to the implementation and enforcement of European law;

29.

Considers that, in light of the Lisbon Treaty, the EP Petitions Committee should forge closer working links with similar committees in Member States’ national and regional parliaments in order to promote mutual understanding of petitions on European issues and to ensure the swiftest response to citizens at the most appropriate level;

30.

Draws attention to the conclusions in its resolution on the impact of extensive urbanisation in Spain and asks the Spanish authorities to continue to provide assessments of the measures taken, as they have been doing up to now;

31.

Notes the increasing number of petitioners who turn to Parliament for redress on issues that fall outside the EU’s area of competence, such as, for example, the calculation of retirement benefits, the enforcement of national courts’ decisions and passivity on the part of national administrations; the Committee on Petitions has done its best to re-direct such complaints to the competent national authorities;

32.

Believes that, while extensive use of the Internet should be encouraged as it facilitates communication with citizens, a solution should be found to prevent the Committee being burdened with ‘non-petitions’; considers that a possible solution could lie in revision of the registration process in Parliament and encourages the staff responsible to re-direct the files in question to the Correspondence with Citizens Unit, rather than submitting them to the Committee on Petitions;

33.

Stresses the need to keep working on increasing the transparency of petitions management: internally by constantly upgrading the E-petition application – which provides Members with direct access to petition files – and externally by establishing a user-friendly, interactive petitions portal which would enable Parliament to reach out more effectively to citizens, and would also make the Committee’s voting procedures and responsibilities clearer to the public;

34.

Encourages the creation of a portal offering a multi-stage interactive template for petitions, which could inform citizens about what can be achieved by submitting petitions to Parliament and about Parliament’s remit, and could include links to alternative means of redress at European and national level; calls for the Union’s responsibilities in various areas to be described in as much detail as possible, to eliminate confusion between EU competences and national competences;

35.

Acknowledges that implementing such an initiative would not be cost-free but urges the relevant administrative services to work with the Committee on Petitions to find the most suitable solutions, as such a portal will be of paramount importance not only in improving contact between Parliament and EU citizens but also in reducing the number of inadmissible petitions;

36.

Stresses that, until the issue of resources is resolved satisfactorily, an immediate improvement of the existing website is necessary;

37.

Welcomes the approval of Parliament’s new Rules of Procedure and the revision of the provisions related to the management of petitions; encourages the work of the Secretariat and political group representatives on a revised guide for Members to the rules and internal procedures of the Committee on Petitions, as such a document will not only assist Members in their work, but will also further increase the transparency of the petitions process;

38.

Reiterates its call to the relevant administrative departments to take the measures needed to set up an electronic register through which citizens may lend support to, or withdraw their support from, a petition in accordance with Rule 202;

39.

Instructs its President to forward this resolution and the report of the Committee on Petitions to the Council, the Commission, the European Ombudsman, the governments of the Member States, their committees on petitions and their national ombudsmen or similar competent bodies.

2.12.2011   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 351/29

A.

whereas the economic crisis has caused a massive rise in unemployment rates in the EU Member States; whereas young people have been disproportionately affected by this trend; whereas the rate of youth unemployment is rising more sharply in relation to the average unemployment rate; whereas more than 5,5 million young people in the EU under 25 were unemployed in December 2009, equivalent to 21,4 % of all young people, creating the paradox that while young people, owing to the ageing of the population, constitute a cornerstone of the social security systems, at the same time they remain on the economic margin,

B.

whereas there are few possibilities for young people to find permanent regular employment; whereas young people mainly enter the labour market via atypical, highly flexible, insecure and precarious forms of employment (marginal part-time, temporary or fixed term employment etc.), and the likelihood that this is a stepping stone to permanent employment is low,

C.

whereas employers seem to be using traineeships and internships more frequently to replace regular employment, thereby exploiting the obstacles to entering the labour market faced by young people; whereas such forms of exploitation of young people need to be addressed and effectively eradicated by Member States,

D.

whereas four out of the ten measures adopted at the Prague 2009 extraordinary EU summit on employment bear on education, vocational training, lifelong learning, apprenticeships, facilitating mobility, and better forecasting of labour market needs and the matching skills,

E.

whereas youth unemployment and underemployment impose heavy social and economic costs on society, resulting in the loss of opportunities for economic growth, erosion of the tax base which undermines investment in infrastructure and public services, increased welfare costs, underutilised investment in education and training, and the risk of long-term unemployment and social exclusion,

F.

whereas younger generations will have to reduce the gigantic public debt caused by the present generation,

G.

whereas economic and demographic projections point out that 80 million job opportunities will arise in the EU in the next decade, the majority of which will require a high skilled workforce; whereas the employment rate for people with high skill levels across the EU as a whole is approximately 85 %, for medium skill levels 70 % and for low skill levels 50 %,

H.

whereas economic growth is crucial for job creation, as more economic growth brings more employment possibilities; whereas more than 50 % of new jobs in Europe are created by SMEs,

I.

whereas the transition from education to work and between jobs is a structural challenge for young people all over the EU; whereas apprenticeships have a largely positive impact on young people’s access to employment, especially if they enable the direct in-house acquisition of work skills and expertise,

J.

whereas education programmes should be improved significantly, while university-business partnerships, efficient apprenticeship schemes, career development loans and investment in training by employers should be encouraged,

K.

whereas young people often face discrimination on the grounds of their age when entering the labour market and when jobs are being cut back; whereas young women are more likely to face unemployment and poverty or to be engaged in casual or undeclared employment than young men; whereas on the other hand young men have been hit hardest by unemployment during the current economic crisis; whereas disabled young people face even greater obstacles to their integration into the labour market,

L.

whereas decent work shifts young people from social dependence to self sufficiency, helps them escape poverty and enables them to make an active contribution to society, both economically and socially; whereas legislation in some Member States introduces age discrimination through restrictions to young people’s rights that are solely based on age, such as the lower minimum wage levels for young people in the UK, limited access to the Revenu de solidarité active in France and reduced unemployment benefits for young people in Denmark, all of which, although intended to get young people into work, are unacceptable and can be counterproductive preventing young people from starting an economically independent life, especially in times of crisis with high youth unemployment,

M.

whereas the Lisbon Strategy’s benchmarks on youth and the modernisation of vocational training (VET) have not been fully met,

N.

whereas flexicurity has been the overall strategy for the EU’s labour markets, aiming at flexible and reliable contracts, lifelong learning, active labour-market policies and social security; whereas, unfortunately, in many countries this strategy has been narrowly interpreted as ‘flexibility’, losing sight of the holistic approach and of employment security and social security,

O.

whereas as a result of demographic change after 2020 a massive shortage in skilled labour will seriously affect the European economic area and this trend can be countered only by adequate education, training and retraining,

P.

whereas small and medium-sized enterprises play their part in the European economic fabric owing both to their number and to their strategic role in combating unemployment,

1.

Urges the Commission and the Member States to take a rights-based approach to youth and employment. The qualitative aspect of decent work for young people must not be compromised, and the core labour standards and other standards related to the quality of work, such as working time, the minimum wage, social security, and occupational health and safety, must be central considerations in the efforts that are made;

2.

Calls on the Council and the Commission to define a job strategy for the EU that combines financial instruments and employment policies in order to avoid ‘jobless growth’ and that entails setting ambitious benchmarks for the employment of young people; strongly encourages having in the job strategy a special focus on developing green jobs and jobs in the social economy, whilst ensuring that Parliament is involved in the decision-making process;

3.

Stresses how important it is for Member States to develop green jobs, for instance by providing training in environmental technologies;

4.

Invites the Member States to create efficient incentives, such as employment subsidies or insurance contributions for young people that will guarantee decent living and working conditions; in order to encourage public and private employers to hire young people, to invest both in quality job creation for young people and in continuous training and upgrading of their skills during employment, and to support entrepreneurship among youth; points to the special role and importance of small enterprises regarding expertise and traditional know-how; encourages ensuring that young people have access to the recently established European Microfinance Facility;

5.

Underlines the importance of entrepreneurial education, being an integral part of the process of acquiring the skills needed for new types of employment;

6.

Calls on the Member States to have ambitious policies on training young people;

7.

Calls on the Commission to promote and support – taking into account the beneficial national partnerships run between schools, universities, enterprises and the social partners – pilot projects in the new strategic development sectors which provide suitable scientific, technological and employment-oriented training for young people, and especially women, in order to promote innovation and competitiveness within enterprises, using study grants, higher education-level apprenticeships and non-atypical employment contracts for that purpose;

8.

Calls on universities to make contact with employers at an early stage and provide students with the opportunity to acquire skills needed for the employment market;

9.

Calls on the Member States to instigate wide-ranging measures aimed at stimulating the economy, such as tax reduction and reduction of the administrative burden on SMEs, in order to bring growth and create new jobs, especially for young people;

10.

Hopes for a successful take-up of microloans by young people; considers that the founders of start-ups must receive consistent and professional advice;

11.

Calls on the Member States to establish inclusive and targeted labour-market policies that secure the respectful inclusion and meaningful occupation of young people, e.g. through the setting-up of inspirational networks, trainee arrangements that include financial aid enabling the trainee to relocate and live close to the place where the traineeship is held, international career centres and youth centres for individual guidance covering particularly matters such as collective organisation and knowledge of legal aspects relating to their traineeship;

12.

Recognises the difficulties that young people encounter in gaining access to finance in order to set up and develop their own business; calls on the Member States and the Commission to adopt measures to facilitate young people’s access to finance, and to set up in cooperation with the business community mentoring programmes for young people on the creation and development of undertakings;

13.

Calls on the Member States to promote the skills of early school-leavers and prepare them for employment by means of innovative projects;

14.

Calls on the Member States to include cooperation between schools and employers at an early stage in their plans to redesign training schemes; considers that local and district authorities must be included in the planning of education and training as they have the network contacts with employers and know what employers need;

15.

Calls on the Commission to expand financial capacity for, and to ensure better use of, the European Social Fund, to earmark a minimum of 10 % of this fund for projects targeting young people and to ease access to the fund; urges the Commission and the Member States not to jeopardise the running of small and innovative projects through excessive control and to review the effectiveness and added value of programmes, such as ‘Youth in Action’, in terms of job opportunities for young people; urges the Member States to improve their targeting of youth;

16.

Urges the Member States to prioritise business-education provider co-operation as the right tool with which to combat structural unemployment;

17.

Calls on the Member States to intensify efforts to reduce early school leaving in order to achieve the goals set out in the EU 2020 Strategy of no more than 10 % of early school leavers by 2012; invites the Member States to make use of a wide range of measures to fight early school leaving and illiteracy, e.g. lowering the number of students in each class, providing assistance for pupils who cannot afford to complete their compulsory education, increasing the emphasis on practical aspects in the syllabus, introducing mentors in all schools, establishing an immediate follow-up of early school leavers; points to Finland which has succeeded in reducing the number of early school leavers by studying with them the possibility of seeking a new direction; invites the Commission to coordinate a project on best practices;

18.

Calls on the Member States to improve links between the educational system and the world of work and devise means of predicting demand for skills and abilities;

19.

Calls for efforts to ensure that all children receive the encouragement they need right from the start, and particularly to safeguard the targeted encouragement of children with language problems or other handicaps, so that they are afforded the greatest possible education and career opportunities;

20.

Calls for more and better apprenticeships; refers to the positive experiences with the dual system within Vocational Educational and Training (VET) in countries such as Germany, Austria and Denmark where the system is seen as an important part of young people’s transition from education to employment; calls on the Member States to support apprenticeship schemes and to incite companies to provide training opportunities for young people even in times of crisis; stresses the importance of adequate training to secure the high-skilled workforce companies will need in the future; stresses that apprenticeships must not replace regular jobs;

21.

Calls for better and secured internships; calls on the Commission and the Council, following the commitment given in Communication COM(2007)0498 ‘to propose an initiative for a European quality charter on internships’, to set up a European Quality Charter on Internships setting out minimum standards for internships to ensure their educational value and avoid exploitation, taking into account that internships form part of education and must not replace actual jobs. These minimum standards should include an outline of the job description or qualifications to be acquired, a time limit on internships, a minimum allowance based on standard-of-living costs in the place where the internship is performed that comply with national traditions, insurance in the area of their work, social security benefits in line with local standards and a clear connection to the educational programme in question;

22.

Calls on the Commission to provide statistics on internships in each Member State which include:

and to produce a comparative study on the different internship schemes existing in the EU Member States;

23.

Calls for each Member State to monitor compliance;

24.

Calls on the Member States to establish a European system for the certification and recognition of knowledge and skills acquired though apprenticeships and traineeships, which will help to increase young workforce mobility;

25.

Calls for young people to be protected from those employers – in the public and private sector – who, through work experience, apprenticeship and traineeship schemes, are able to cover their essential and basic needs at little or no cost, exploiting the willingness of young people to learn without any future prospect of becoming fully established as part of their workforce;

26.

Highlights the importance of promoting young people’s labour and training mobility across the Member States, and the need to improve the recognition and transparency of qualifications, skills and diplomas in the EU; calls for the redoubling of efforts to develop the European Qualifications Framework for lifelong learning and the European Quality Assurance Reference Framework for Vocational Education and Training, and for the Leonardo da Vinci programme to be strengthened;

27.

Calls upon the Member States to speed up the harmonisation of national qualification profiles and European qualification profiles so as to further increase the mobility of young people in the fields of education and work;

28.

Stresses the role of private sector education providers, as the private sector is usually more innovative in designing courses and more flexible in providing them;

29.

Urges the Member States to provide young people in traineeship, work experience or apprenticeship schemes with full workplace and social security entitlements, subsidising where appropriate a part of their contributions;

30.

Calls on the Commission and the Member States to incorporate apprenticeship, traineeship and work experience schemes into the social security systems;

31.

Invites the Member States to strengthen their systems for educational guidance at the primary to secondary school stage, in order to help young people and their families select education and training channels that effectively correspond to actual aptitudes, abilities and aspirations, thereby reducing the risk of drop-out and failure;

32.

Recognises that, in times of crisis, young people seek education and should be encouraged to do so; calls on all Member States to secure equal access to education for all by guaranteeing a minimum right to free well-funded education from nursery school to university and by securing financial support for young students; invites the Member States to invest further in education and training, even if fiscal and social constraints are present, to implement the European Qualifications Framework as fast as possible and, where necessary, to establish national skills frameworks;

33.

Recalls that the aim of the Copenhagen process is to encourage individuals to make use of the wide range of vocational learning opportunities available (e.g. at school, in higher education, at the workplace, or through private courses);

34.

Calls on the Commission to expand EU programmes that support education and up-skilling, such as Lifelong Learning, the European Social Fund, the Marie Curie and Erasmus Mundus Actions and the Science Education Initiative;

35.

Calls for Member States to set up National Task Forces on Youth to ensure a stronger coherence between the educational system and the labour market, promoting a stronger and shared responsibility between government, employers and individuals for investing in skills; calls for the Member States to provide advisory bodies at all schools to help smooth the transition from education to the labour market and promote cooperation between public and private actors;

36.

Considers it extremely important to adapt the education and training system to the rapidly changing labour market and the demand for new professions;

37.

Considers language learning crucial for facilitating young people’s access to the labour market and for promoting their mobility and equal opportunities;

38.

Calls on the Commission and the Member States to provide young people with information on the demands on the labour market, provided that suitable review mechanisms are introduced to monitor developments in occupations; calls on the Commission and the Member States to develop lifecycle-based policies and strategies in which education and employment are better integrated, in which safe transition is a key point and in which there is a constant up-skilling of the labour force providing them with the key competences required by the labour market;

39.

Calls on the Commission to intensify its work on recognition of professional qualifications, including non-formal learning and work experience, in order to support the mobility of young people;

40.

Calls upon the Member States to promote the recognition of educational achievements acquired in the framework of non-formal and informal learning so that young people can further demonstrate their education and competence as required when seeking work on the labour market;

41.

Calls for greater support and prestige for vocational training;

42.

Urges the Commission to revise the flexicurity strategy in conjunction with the social partners in order to place transition security at the top of the agenda while creating mobility and easier access for young people; underlines that flexibility without social security is not a sustainable way of combating the problems young people face on the labour market, but on the contrary is a way of evading young people’s labour and social security rights;

43.

Appeals to the Member States to include all four flexicurity components in the national designs for youth employment strategies, namely:

44.

Calls on the Member States and the social partners to secure quality work to prevent young people falling into the ‘precariousness trap’; calls on the Member States and the social partners, on the basis of existing national laws and in cooperation with the Commission, to establish and implement better standards protecting those who work in insecure or low-quality jobs;

45.

Calls on the Commission to assess the long-term consequences of youth unemployment and fairness between generations;

46.

Underlines the need for strong and structured social dialogue in all workplaces in order to protect young workers from exploitation and the often precarious nature of temporary work; underlines the need for the social partners to address young workers and their specific needs;

47.

Calls on the Commission and the Member States to do more to ensure that the Employment Equality Directive, which outlaws discrimination on the grounds of age in employment, has been transposed correctly and is being implemented effectively; believes that much more must be done to ensure that both employees and employers are aware of their rights and obligations under this legislation;

48.

Calls on the Member States and the social partners to implement strategies to inform and educate young people on their rights at work and the various alternative routes to their integration in the labour market;

49.

Invites the Commission and the Member States to foster rapprochement between the worlds of work and education so that training paths such as dual training can be designed that combine theoretical notions with practical experience, in order to equip young people with the requisite general skills and specific expertise; invites the Commission and the Member States also to invest in support for an awareness campaign on vocational training (VET) and technical and entrepreneurial studies, so that these career paths are no longer perceived as a disqualifying choice, but as a chance to fill gaps in the market for technical jobs, demand for which is markedly increasing, and to rekindle the European economy;

50.

Calls on the Member States and the social partners to undertake more intensive planning and implementation of programmes to increase young people’s access to the labour market through active employment policies, particularly in those regions and sectors with high youth unemployment;

51.

Urges the Member States to absorb the impact youth unemployment will have on the pension rights of that generation and, by taking generous account of the time spent in education, give young people an incentive to continue their education for a long period;

52.

Calls on the social partners to intensify their efforts to inform young people of their right to participate in the social dialogue, and to boost participation by this large section of the economically active population in the structures of their representative bodies;

53.

Calls on the Commission and the Member States to ensure that national legislation affecting youth, and in particularly national legislation based on the Employment Equality Directive (2000/78/EC), is not used to discriminate against young employees’ access to social benefits; believes that much more must be done to ensure that both employees and employers are aware of their rights and obligations under this legislation;

54.

Calls on the Member States to provide for initiatives likely to ensure that young immigrants can learn the language of their host country, that the qualifications they have acquired in their home country are recognised and that they have access to key skills, thereby enabling their social integration and participation in the labour market;

55.

Calls on the Commission and the Member States to provide adequate and better childcare facilities, such as all-day schools, for young parents at an acceptable cost, thereby making it more possible for young parents, especially mothers, to be able to participate in the labour market;

56.

Calls for the assistance given by Member States to young parents in the form of either childcare or crèches to be substantial enough that it does not deter them from participating in the labour market;

57.

Calls for the Member States to establish a short-term effort focused on young unemployed men in the sectors affected by the crisis, while not losing sight of the long-term problems experienced by young women in accessing the labour market;

58.

Calls for the Member States to introduce affirmative action measures for young people in those areas of the labour market where youth is under-represented, so as to overcome the consequences of previous age discrimination and achieve a truly diverse workforce, making reasonable adaptations as appropriate for young people with disabilities; points to good experience as regards affirmative action in combating discrimination;

59.

Stresses the need to develop specific programmes for people with disabilities aimed at increasing their chances of accessing the labour market;

60.

Underlines the importance of encouraging traineeships and mobility for young people involved in schools or training for artistic activities such as the cinema, music, dance, the theatre or the circus;

61.

Considers that there should be greater support for volunteer programmes in various fields, including, inter alia, the social, cultural and sporting fields;

62.

Calls on the various branches of industry to set up generation partnerships in businesses and organisations and in this way generate an active exchange of know-how and combine productively the experience of different generations;

63.

Recognises the importance of young people being able to be financially independent and calls for the Member States to ensure that all young people are individually entitled to a decent level of income that secures for them the possibility of creating an economically independent life;

64.

Calls on the Member States to ensure that young people can, if they so wish, receive effective assistance in choosing their career, finding out about their rights and managing their minimum income;

65.

Suggests that the Council and the Commission come forward with a European Youth Guarantee securing the right of every young person in the EU to be offered a job, an apprenticeship, additional training or combined work and training after a maximum period of 4 months’ unemployment;

66.

Welcomes progress towards defining the EU 2020 Strategy but regrets that there has been no public and transparent evaluation of the Lisbon Strategy, and in particular of the European Youth Pact, including benchmarks for youth, and regrets that the social partners, civil society and youth organisations were not consulted sufficiently during the process of developing the EU 2020 Strategy;

67.

Calls on the Member States to introduce and assess new binding youth benchmarks; invites the Commission to evaluate annually existing youth benchmarks and the Youth Guarantee in order to deliver results and progress based on statistical information that is better disaggregated and broken down, especially by gender and age group;

68.

Calls on the Council and the Commission to agree to and deliver on new improved governance and information tools for the work on youth employment;

69.

Suggests the setting up of a permanent EU youth taskforce involving youth organisations, Member States, the Commission, Parliament and the social partners to monitor developments on youth employment, enable cross-section policies, share best practice examples and initiate new policies;

70.

Highlights the importance of involving young people in the setting up of education and training policies so that their needs can be better taken into account; recommends in that regard that the Commission consult representatives of national youth councils on the priorities for young people;

71.

Calls on the Member States to assess policy impacts on youth, to include youth in all processes and establish youth councils to monitor youth-related policies;

72.

Calls on the European Institutions to set a good example by removing their advertisements for unpaid traineeships from their respective websites and to pay:

73.

Instructs its President to forward this resolution to the Council, the Commission and the governments and parliaments of the Member States.

2.12.2011   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 351/39

A.

whereas non-standard employment has grown significantly since 1990 and the jobs lost as a result of the present economic crisis were primarily those in the atypical sector; whereas new types of contract with one or more of the following characteristics are classified as ‘atypical’ employment: part-time work, casual work, temporary work, work under fixed-term contracts, home working and teleworking, part-time employment of 20 hours or less per week,

B.

whereas the need for flexible employment has been underlined on several occasions,

C.

whereas globalisation and rapid technological developments are causing far-reaching economic restructuring, giving rise to changes in employment relationships and in the content of workers’ tasks, along with successive waves of new one-person independent businesses across all sectors and age-groups, creating the need for a redefinition of employment relationships, with the aim of avoiding distortions (such as the phenomenon of ‘false’ self-employed persons),

D.

having regard to the financial and economic crisis, which has turned into a serious employment crisis with a huge loss of jobs and has led to unstable labour markets and rising poverty and social exclusion, in particular for already vulnerable individuals and disadvantaged groups,

E.

whereas the number of people living in in-work poverty is increasing, having reached 8 % of the European workforce, and the proportion of low-wage earners is currently about 17 %,

F.

whereas a substantial and complementary EU approach, focusing strongly on effective governance and a mutually supportive mix of policy measures in the fields of economic, environmental, employment and social policies and entrepreneurship, should be developed, in keeping with the principles of the European Employment Strategy (EES), the purpose of which is to impel Member States to pursue common objectives based on the four principles of employability, entrepreneurship, adaptability and equal opportunities,

G.

whereas the unemployment rate in the EU 27 has risen to 10 % (2009) and unemployment is unlikely to peak before the first half of 2011,

H.

whereas a breakdown of employment changes by educational level shows that the number of low-skilled persons in employment has decreased in recent years,

I.

whereas on average every year between one-fifth and one-quarter of all European workers change job,

J.

whereas the transition rate between unemployment and employment is high, with a third of the unemployed and 10 % of the inactive population finding jobs within one year, but whereas a large number of workers, especially those in atypical employment, lose their jobs without finding new ones,

K.

whereas in the EU 2 745 % of all periods of unemployment last longer than one year, compared with about 10 % in the USA,

L.

whereas labour turnover is higher among women than men (five percentage points difference) and among younger workers (aged under 24), and decreases with rising levels of education, showing that change is more often imposed than chosen and is linked to short-term, insecure contracts and that young people often fail to find employment commensurate with their academic qualifications,

M.

whereas it is estimated that one in six workers has care responsibilities for an older or dependent relative or friend,

N.

whereas in some Member States there has been an increase in the incidence of undeclared work, which could lead to serious economic (particularly fiscal), social and political problems,

O.

whereas the assessment of flexicurity is complex and a holistic approach is essential, especially in the light of the changes which the present crisis may also bring about in the behaviour of companies by encouraging them to engage in ever less protected, highly precarious employment relationships,

P.

whereas, in the context of employment employment policies, equal opportunities for women and men, the reconciliation of professional, educational and family life and non-discrimination principles need to be actively promoted,

Q.

whereas, while the social dialogue has developed in different ways across Europe, overall the mounting economic and financial difficulties have led to intensified tripartite dialogue,

R.

whereas collective bargaining is the most common way of determining pay in Europe - two out of three workers are covered by a collective wage agreement, whether at company or at a higher level,

S.

whereas the Informal Meeting of EU Ministers for Employment and Social Affairs held in Berlin on 19 January 2007 concluded that ‘Europe needs more and joint efforts to promote good work. Good work means employee rights and participation, fair wages, protection of safety and health at work as well as a family friendly work organisation. Good and fair working conditions as well as an appropriate social protection are indispensable for the acceptance of the European Union by its citizens’,

T.

whereas the concept of good work should provide the fundamental guidance for the next phase of the EES,

1.

Calls on the 2010 spring European Council for clear guidance and concrete measures aimed at safeguarding decent work and quality employment and creating sustainable job opportunities in the framework of an ambitious EU2020 Strategy that takes account of the impact of the crisis on the economy, society and the labour market;

2.

Calls on the Commission to evaluate the efforts made by the Mission for Flexicurity, calls on the Member States to put in place a more balanced and fair implementation of flexicurity principles, and points out that mutual learning and exchanges of good practice, as well as the open method of coordination (OMC), are essential tools for coordinating Member States’ differing policy approaches; notes, however, that the OMC could be improved and that, in order to raise effectiveness, the governance of the OMC needs to be strengthened;

3.

Notes the wide variety of labour traditions, contractual forms and business models existing in labour markets, highlighting the need, against this background of diversity, to give priority to protecting European models and established labour rights; recommends the adoption of a bottom-up approach in developing new employment strategies so as to facilitate dialogue and the involvement of political and social authorities at all levels;

4.

Calls on the Commission and the Member States to recognise and support the special position of independent freelance workers as a vital force in economic recovery, as a ‘way in’ or an alternative to the labour market; notes that independent working is growing in popularity, especially among young workers and women and as a transition from work to retirement; believes that independent freelancers should be treated as a unique subset of micro-businesses and calls for measures to be taken to minimise the burden of regulation and to encourage and support independent freelancers in launching/growing independent freelance businesses and to promote lifelong learning for this group;

5.

Emphasises the importance of self-employment, particularly for micro- and small businesses, and highlights the importance of the liberal professions, with their particular characteristics; emphasises that the term ‘liberal profession’ simply denotes a particular skilled occupation which can also be pursued independently;

6.

Considers that all employees, regardless of their employment status, should be guaranteed a set of core rights; recommends that the priorities for labour law reform, where it is needed, should focus on: urgent extension of the protection of workers in atypical forms of employment; grouping atypical contracts together for the purpose of simplification; the sustainable creation of normal employment relationships; clarification of the situation of dependent employment, including preventive action with regard to the health and safety of atypical workers; action against undeclared work; support for the creation of new jobs, including under atypical contracts, and the facilitation of transitions between various types of employment and unemployment, through the promotion of policies such as special employment allowances, lifelong learning, retraining and on-the-job training; encourages steps to clarify the situation of dependent employment, and calls on the Commission to develop clear guidelines on the scope of the employment relationship, as recommended by the ILO in its 2006 Recommendations;

7.

Welcomes some Member States’ introduction of provisions to allow employees with care responsibilities to reconcile their responsibilities with their professional obligations by means of more flexible working arrangements; calls on the Commission and Member States actively to support carers in the workplace by providing flexible working conditions, including leave entitlements and flexi-time, part-time and home-working arrangements, which would enable more carers in all Member States to remain in or return to paid employment;

8.

Notes the distinction made by the European Foundation for the Improvement of Living and Working Conditions between atypical and very atypical employment relationships; believes that many forms of atypical employment relationship represent important ways for carers, students and others who rely on short-term contracts and part-time work, for example, to earn extra income; emphasises that it is vital that workers in atypical employment relationships should have minimum rights and be protected against exploitation;

9.

Encourages Member States to promote transitions into productive and rewarding high-quality jobs and to develop labour law provisions that effectively safeguard the rights of people who are employed in atypical forms of work, ensuring equal treatment with workers with full-time standard contracts on the basis of the maximum level of worker protection;

10.

Recommends that workers on atypical contracts be covered by existing EU directives that cover worker categories within the EU, including the Working Time Directive(93/104/EC), the directive on temporary agency work(2008/104/EC), the directive on part-time work (97/81/EC) and the Council Directive concerning the framework agreement on fixed-term work (1999/70/EC);

11.

Notes that the trend towards an increase in the proportion of non-standard or atypical contracts has a strong gender and intergenerational dimension, as women, older and younger workers are disproportionately represented in non-standard employment; notes that some sectors experience rapid structural changes; calls on the Member States and the Commission to investigate the reasons for this trend, to take appropriate, targeted measures in the relevant areas to combat this imbalance, by facilitating the transition towards permanent employment and, in particular, by promoting measures to enable both men and women to reconcile work, family and private life, through a greater focus on social dialogue with worker representatives in companies, and to monitor and publicise the success of these measures; calls, further, on the Commission and the Member States to ensure that the recourse to non-standard or atypical contracts does not serve to conceal illicit employment, but rather to promote, via the exchange of skills, the transition of young people and the unemployed towards effective integration in the labour market by providing employees and companies with a context of security and flexibility that strengthens both employability and competitiveness;

12.

Calls on the Member States to ensure the more effective implementation of Directive 97/81/EC on part-time work and Directive 1999/70/EC on fixed-term work having regard in particular to the fundamental principle of non discrimination; stresses the importance of training and lifelong learning in facilitating job transitions, which is especially important for fixed term workers;

13.

Stresses that recourse to atypical forms of employment should be a personal choice and not an imposition dictated by increasing barriers to labour market access for certain groups or the lack of high-quality jobs; notes that, in particular for multiply disadvantaged workers, individually tailored atypical contracts provided by work integration social enterprises may be a choice as they offer a first stepping stone into employment;

14.

Welcomes the adoption of Directive 2008/104/EC on agency work and calls for its swift implementation;

15.

Notes that atypical forms of employment must contractually provide workers with a course of training, and stresses that non-standard forms of work can, if they are properly protected and include support in the area of social security, workers’ rights and the transition to stable, protected employment, constitute an opportunity, but that they must go hand in hand with support for workers who find themselves in situations of transition from one job or employment status to another through targeted active employment policies; deplores the fact that this is often neglected;

16.

Encourages the Member States to develop early and active intervention policies giving workers, in particular women, who re-enter the labour market an entitlement to individual support during the period necessary for them to develop their training and/or (re)qualification; unemployed people should be supported both by a solid social security system and by an efficient system of active policies, so that they can re-enter the labour market quickly even if their previous contracts were atypical, the important consideration being to keep people in the labour market and facilitate their transition to decent, stable, protected, high-quality forms of employment; if the re-entry takes place through atypical contracts, these contracts must guarantee well-regulated and secure working conditions;

17.

Calls on the Commission, with the help of the social partners, to analyse and monitor the different types of instrument developed within national activation policies;

18.

Calls on the Union and the Member States, with the help of the social partners, to fight effectively illicit employment, in particular by means of prevention and deterrent penalties, and believes that defining strategies, including at European level, that oppose illicit employment can help in fighting illicit employment and in reducing unsecured, especially ‘atypical’, employment relationships; takes the view that combating illicit employment should be accompanied by measures to create viable and sustainable employment alternatives and to support people in gaining access to the open labour market;

19.

Stresses the need to create high-quality, sustainable and secure jobs, if necessary after a period of training geared towards sustainable, full-time employment, including green and ‘white’ (health sector) jobs, and to ensure social cohesion;

20.

Emphasises that not all forms of atypical employment necessarily lead to unstable, insecure, casual labour with lower levels of social security protection, lower wages and restricted access to further training and lifelong learning; points out, however, that such insecure forms of employment are often linked to atypical contractual arrangements;

21.

Points out that high unemployment and labour market segmentation need to be overcome by giving all workers equal rights and investing in job creation, skills and lifelong learning; calls on the Member States, therefore, to phase out all forms of insecure employment;

22.

Points out that phasing out precarious employment needs a strong commitment from Member States to provide through their labour market policies adequate ‘stepping stones’ for the transition from precarious employment to regular permanent employment with enhanced workers’ rights and social protection;

23.

Highlights the fact that the European Union has committed itself to the goal of enabling people to reconcile work and private life; criticises, however, the fact that the Commission and the Member States have failed to take any meaningful and effective action to put this commitment into practice;

24.

Points out that better reconciliation of work and private life can best be achieved by updating the standard employment model: permanent contracts with shorter full-time employment as the general norm, and the introduction of norms for part-time employment, so that only substantiated and socially protected part-time work (15-25 hours weekly) will be offered to those who wish to work part-time; stresses the need to put full-time and part-time employment on an equal footing as far as hourly wages, entitlements to education and lifelong learning, career opportunities and social protection are concerned;

25.

Believes it essential that current thinking on flexicurity be updated at European level in the light of the present crisis, so as to help increase both productivity and the quality of jobs by guaranteeing security and the protection of employment and workers’ rights, with special support for people who are disadvantaged on the labour market, while allowing firms the organisational flexibility needed to create or reduce jobs in response to the changing needs of the market; takes the view that a fair and balanced implementation of flexicurity principles can help to make labour markets more robust in the event of structural changes; takes the view, further, that flexibility and security requirements and active labour market policies are not contradictory and can be mutually reinforcing if established by means of a fair comparison of the views of the social partners, governments and the European institutions, together with reciprocal learning and exchange of good practices; believes that these requirements have not been adequately reflected in Europe’s employment growth results in recent years;

26.

Points out that there is a steadily increasing problem with regard to ‘false’ self-employed persons, who are often forced by their employer to work under wretched conditions; employers who utilise the working capacity of ‘false’ self-employed persons must also have penalties imposed on them;

27.

Believes that flexicurity cannot function properly without strong social protection and support for people re-entering the labour market, which are essential elements during transitions from education to employment, between jobs, and from employment to retirement;

28.

Calls on the Commission to continue its efforts to achieve balanced implementation of flexicurity policies by putting forward an analysis of the situation to date regarding implementation in the Member States and by checking that flexibility measures have been properly accompanied by security measures for workers, and to assist Member States and the social partners in implementing the principles of flexicurity so that they are applied with respect for acquired social rights at European level and in accordance with the specific nature of the various labour markets and the differing traditions with regard to labour policies and collective bargaining and the structure of social security systems, and points out that reciprocal learning, exchanges of good practice and the open coordination method are essential tools for coordinating the varying strategic approaches of the Member States;

29.

Believes that, especially in the context of the present economic situation, taking stock of the implementation of flexicurity in the Member States is even more necessary and that the social partners will only support labour-law and labour-market reforms if they also aim at effectively reducing differences in treatment between different types of contracts; points out that the application of flexibility principles requires adequate social protection, ensuring that people can live and develop, together with special support for job seekers and solid labour laws for all kinds of employment based on a clear institutional framework, and needs to be accompanied by increased protection mechanisms to prevent hardship;

30.

Emphasises that the demand for a high degree of flexibility at work should not reach a point where it excessively restricts people’s lives and development and where it makes it very difficult for them to establish and support a family, care for relatives and participate in the life of society;

31.

Stresses the importance of the security aspect in flexicurity, which needs to provide support in job-seeking for workers in transition situations and guarantee them decent living conditions; that support must include adequate training measures to enable people to adapt to the necessities of the labour market;

32.

Believes that companies fear a persistent mismatch between their needs and the competences offered by job-seekers, lack access to credit enabling them to recruit and invest and do not invest enough in the labour market, and stresses the importance, in the context of the current economic crisis, of the development of long-term vision by the European production system; creating a favourable business environment, adequate financial resources and the provision of good working conditions; and enhancing legal certainty and transparency for both employers and workers with regard to the scope, coverage and enforcement of labour law;

33.

Emphasises the importance of preventing, detecting and penalising illicit employment; calls on the Commission to draw up a set of concrete initiatives, including specific rules to tackle ‘letter box companies’, provisions on joint and several liability in subcontracting chains and the creation of an EU agency to prevent and detect illicit employment;

34.

Believes that, because of the economic and financial crisis, in some Member States companies are not managing to find on the labour market the forms of contract that would best enable them to meet their requirements in terms of the flexibility needed to respond to unpredictable fluctuations in market demand, cost containment and the protection of workers’ security;

35.

Calls, in the context of modern work organisation, for the creation of flexible and secure contractual arrangements ensuring equal treatment; is firmly convinced that employment contracts of an indefinite duration must continue to be the main form of employment and considers that, in the context of modern work organisation, provision should be made for contracts that are flexible in terms of working arrangements and secure with regard to job protection and rights; recognises that the definition of the legal framework for employment contracts of an indefinite duration and how they are geared to the concept of flexicurity in national labour law is crucially important for their acceptance by businesses and employees;

36.

Strongly condemns the replacement of regular employment with forms of atypical contract that contribute to poorer and more uncertain working conditions than regular employment conditions and that work to the detriment of the general public, employees and competitors; stresses that abusive practices violate and destabilise the European social model, and calls on the Member States and the Commission to use all necessary means to fight abusive practices in the long term, for example by imposing more stringent penalties;

37.

Firmly believes that, taking into account the different traditions in Member States, any form of employment should be accompanied by a core of rights, which should include: living wages and the elimination of gender and ethnic pay gaps; adequate social protection; non-discrimination and equal treatment while seeking and while in employment, training and career development; workers’ health and safety protection and provisions on working/rest time, pension rights, freedom of association and representation, collective bargaining, collective action, access to training and career progression, and protection in the event of loss of employment;

38.

Calls for the EU and the Member States to step up their efforts to invest in skills and training to support stable and sustainable employment; therefore calls on the Member States to invest in people by vigorously implementing and financing learning strategies geared to market requirements, and the recognition of non-formal skills and competences, while respecting a life-cycle approach; calls, further, on the Member States to introduce measures at national, regional and local level to guarantee that each young person leaving school has access to a job or to higher education or receives vocational training;

39.

Calls on the Member States to implement policies that enable all people, including the weakest and most disadvantaged, to have effective access to the labour market and to balance flexible work and care, private and family life better, ensuring extensive support for equal opportunities and for all the services needed for that purpose, for example through flanking measures such as maternity, paternity and parental leave, flexible working time, and affordable, accessible and available childcare facilities;

40.

Calls on the Member states to come up with policies aimed at creating new job opportunities; is aware of the responsibility of and risks faced by those who create such jobs, including those under atypical contracts;

41.

Calls on the Member States to implement measures to enable workers to return to work following parental leave, after first undergoing refresher training if needed;

42.

Strongly recommends that the EU employment initiative should include early intervention in support of the unemployed at the moment when jobs are actually lost, not least in order to reduce the risk of people becoming excluded from the labour market and the loss of the human capital they constitute;

43.

Calls on the Member States to strengthen support schemes, particularly for the low-skilled and disabled, by means of pathway approaches, personalised counselling, intensive (re-)training of workers, subsidised employment and start-up grants for the self-employed and businesses; specifically emphasises, however, that this aid must be structured in such a way that regular jobs are not replaced;

44.

Calls on the Commission and the Member States to eliminate administrative burdens, where they do not serve to protect workers’ interests, in order to improve the business environment, particularly for SMEs, but stresses the importance of ensuring that any changes have no implications for the safety or health of employees; points out that SMEs are, by virtue of their large number, the main agents in the struggle against unemployment in the EU; stresses the importance of taking account, when formulating the employment policies that concern them, of their specific requirements and those of the territory in which they are located;

45.

Calls on the Member States to report on the state of play regarding thinking on and implementation of flexicurity pathways;

46.

Deplores the Council’s and the Commission’s narrow approach to flexicurity; calls on the Commission and the Council to commit themselves to the Good Work agenda and to incorporate it into the next generation of the Integrated Guidelines and the European Employment Strategy: promoting job and employment security for workers, a rights-based approach to active labour market policies and lifelong learning, comprehensive health and safety at work, universal and equal social and workers’ rights for everyone, a work/life balance and reconciliation of work and non-work life, and improving the quality of employment and well-being at work;

47.

Calls on the Member States not to allow redundancies on solely economic grounds until every effort has been made to (re)train workers;

48.

Believes that the formal recognition of the role of the social partners in the new Treaty constitutes progress, as it recognises their autonomy and reaffirms the importance of their role in promoting social dialogue, and highlights here the particular importance of sectoral social dialogue, in which 40 sectors are now represented;

49.

Is concerned, however, at the impact of the recent ECJ judgment in the Laval, Rüffert, Viking and Luxembourg case on freedom of association and freedom to action to improve working conditions;

50.

Is of the opinion that acknowledgment of the Tripartite Summit for Growth and Employment as an institutional body contributes to the involvement of the social partners in EU economic policies;

51.

Believes that the contribution of the European and national social partners and civil society organisations to achieving the EU2020 Strategy is particularly important with regard to reaching the employment targets and updating and implementing the flexicurity agenda;

52.

Calls on the Commission and national governments to feel responsible for the situation of the ‘outsiders’ (employees with atypical or ‘very atypical’ contracts) and to ensure that their rights and social-protection requirements are balanced with those of the ‘insiders’;

53.

Calls on the social partners at European and national level to support investment in learning strategies geared to market requirements and welcomes the ‘Framework of actions for the lifelong learning development of competencies and qualifications’ already negotiated by the social partners;

54.

Believes that people involved in labour market inclusion measures or measures to prepare them to (re-)enter the labour market as well as civil society organisations providing these services to them or representing them should be part of the framing, implementation and delivery of policies affecting them;

55.

Notes that the involvement of the social partners and civil society organisations in policy-making and implementation varies widely across the Member States, but that generally the trend is towards the use of a wider mix of instruments to pursue policy objectives; believes that the quality of the social and institutional recognition which the social partners enjoy should at national level be further enhanced and more substantial in nature, since it is an important determinant of the quality of their contribution; stresses in particular, however, that the quality of social dialogue varies greatly from country to country and from sector to sector, and strongly urges the social partners to develop a genuine ‘social partnership’ at all levels;

56.

Believes that collective bargaining has proven to be an effective instrument for maintaining employment and that it allows employers and employees to find efficient solutions to deal with the economic downturn; notes, in this regard, the importance of a strong consensus between the social partners in national systems where labour law protection is set to a minimum;

57.

Is convinced that successful social dialogue in the workplace is largely determined by the facilities that the employee representations have with regard to quality information provision, regular training and sufficient time;

58.

Is convinced that the role of governments is decisive in providing the preconditions for inclusive and effective collective bargaining and encompassing tripartite structures to involve the social partners in an institutionally formalised and substantial way, and on an equal basis, in public policy-making, in accordance with national practice and traditions;

59.

Instructs its President to forward this resolution to the Council, the Commission, the Social Protection Committee, the European Employment Committee and the governments and parliaments of the Member States and the candidate countries.

2.12.2011   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 351/48

A.

whereas the Commission initiative promoted in its Green Paper provides an opportunity for Community action on the management of bio-waste,

B.

whereas the proper management of bio-waste brings not only environmental but also social and economic advantages,

C.

whereas Article 2(4) of the Waste Framework Directive provides that specific or supplementary rules on the management of particular categories of waste may be laid down by means of individual directives,

D.

whereas Directive 1999/31/EC on the landfill of waste does not provide sufficient instruments for the sustainable management of organic waste,

E.

whereas the rules on the management of bio-waste are fragmented and the current legislative instruments are not sufficient to achieve the stated objectives of the effective management of bio-waste; whereas, consequently, a specific directive is necessary for the management of bio-waste; whereas compiling all the various rules on the management of bio-waste in a single piece of legislation would in itself be an exercise in legislative excellence and better lawmaking, whilst at the same time ensuring simplification, greater clarity and better monitoring and enforcement of implementation and legal certainty and thus guaranteeing the long-term confidence of public and private investors,

F.

whereas the conclusions of the conference on the recycling of bio-waste in Europe, held in Barcelona on 15 February 2010 with the participation of the Council, the Commission and the European Parliament (13), stated that it is necessary to act in order to create a European legislative framework on bio-waste, since this is a key moment to promote such regulation,

G.

whereas a specific directive on bio-waste should have the necessary flexibility to cover the various management options available, bearing in mind that there are a large number of variables and local considerations that need to be taken into account,

H.

noting the unexplored potential of bio-waste managed in line with widely differing policies in each Member State; whereas improved management of this waste is necessary in order to achieve the efficient and sustainable management of resources; whereas the separate collection of bio-waste should be stepped up in order to reach the targets for recycling and renewable energies and thereby contribute to achieving the goals of the EU 2020 strategy, in particular within the framework of the flagship of resource efficiency,

I.

whereas separate collection permits, in particular, the optimal management of certain types of bio-waste, i.e. kitchen waste at consumer and catering levels and also biodegradable and compostable waste from restaurants employing single-use crockery items,

J.

whereas composting organic waste permits the recycling of the biodegradable and compostable products already covered by a Community initiative (the Lead Market Initiative),

K.

whereas EU-level quality standards need to be defined for the treatment of bio-waste and the quality of compost; whereas regulating the quality parameters for compost, including an integrated approach ensuring traceability, quality and safe use, will make it possible to build consumer confidence in this product; whereas compost should be graded in line with its quality, to the extent that the use of compost will have no detrimental effect for soil and groundwater, and in particular for the agricultural produce stemming from that soil,

L.

whereas, given their poor implementation, the objectives set for diverting bio-waste from landfills require additional legislative guidelines if they are to be achieved,

M.

whereas protective measures can be necessary to ensure that the use of compost does not result in pollution of soil or groundwater,

N.

whereas the possibilities for using poor-quality compost so as not to harm the environment or human health should also be considered and assessed, and whereas, at EU level, properly defining the possibilities for using poor-quality compost and establishing when compost is considered a product and when it is considered waste would make it easier for Member States to orient themselves when deciding on matters relating to compost use,

O.

whereas a resource-efficient Europe is one of the flagships of the Europe 2020 Strategy and therefore resource efficiency should be encouraged; whereas recycling of bio-waste contributes towards increasing resource efficiency,

P.

whereas moist bio-waste lowers the efficiency of incineration; whereas the incineration of bio-waste is indirectly encouraged through the Directive on Electricity Production from Renewable Energy Sources; whereas bio-waste can better contribute to combating climate change through recycling it into compost to improve soil quality and achieve carbon sequestration, which is not currently promoted by the Directive on Electricity Production from Renewable Energy Sources,

Q.

whereas anaerobic digestion for the production of biogas is an efficient means of energy recovery; while the digestate thereof can be used to produce compost,

R.

whereas the main aim of the appropriate management of bio-waste must be the result, which means that all the technological options for the management of bio-waste can be kept open to encourage innovation, scientific research and competitiveness,

S.

whereas there is a significant synergy between the transition to a recycling society developing a low carbon economy and the potential for creating green jobs in this field, and consequently a need for appropriations to be earmarked for research into the impact on the working environment of the collection and management of bio-waste,

T.

whereas the Commission and Member States should promote environmental awareness-raising activities in this field, particularly in schools, so as to foster the sustainable management of solid urban waste and raise public awareness of the advantages of separate collection; whereas municipalities and municipal undertakings play an important role in providing advice and information for the public on preventing waste,

U.

whereas bio-waste accounts for more than 30 % of solid urban waste; whereas the volume of bio-waste is rising in the European Union, representing a significant source of greenhouse gas emissions and other negative environmental effects when dumped in landfills in conditions owing to which waste management is now the fourth most important source of greenhouse gases,

V.

whereas it is not only bio-waste of household origin that is being treated sustainably in practice,

W.

whereas the management of such waste should be structured in line with the ‘waste hierarchy’: prevention and reduction, reuse, recycling, other types of recovery, in particular for energy purposes, and as the last option, landfilling (in accordance with Article 4 of the Waste Framework Directive), according to which the recycling of bio-waste is preferable to its incineration as it not only avoids the formation of methane gas, but also contributes to combating climate change via carbon sequestration and improving soil quality; whereas prevention is the priority objective in the management of bio-waste and makes it possible, in particular, to avoid food waste and green waste, for example through the improved planning of public parks with low-maintenance plants and trees,

X.

whereas, if we are to move towards an environmentally effective management of bio-waste, the matter needs to be viewed from an integrated perspective in energy and soil protection policies, in line with climate change mitigation goals; whereas a further advantage is the preservation of biodiversity when treated bio-waste is used as a substitute for peat, thereby protecting wetland eco-systems,

Y.

whereas anaerobic digestion to produce biogas from bio-waste can make a valuable contribution to sustainable resource management in the EU and to meeting the EU’s renewable energy targets in a sustainable way,

Z.

whereas bio-waste should be seen as a valuable natural resource that can be used to produce high-quality compost, thereby helping to combat soil degradation in Europe, maintaining soil productivity, reducing the use of chemical fertilisers in agriculture, and especially of those based on phosphorus, and boosting the soil’s water retention capacity,

AA.

whereas different waste management systems are used in the Member States and landfilling is still the most widely used method of disposing of solid urban waste in the European Union, even though it is the worst option for the environment,

AB.

whereas the production of fuel for transport from bio-waste offers a significant environmental advantage;

AC.

whereas scientific research and technological innovation need to be encouraged in the field of bio-waste management,

AD.

whereas separate collection currently makes it possible to prevent contamination and help achieve the goal of obtaining high-quality compost, providing quality materials for the recycling of bio-waste and making energy recovery more efficient,

AE.

whereas the available studies and experience in the Member States show that it is important to have a separate collection which is both practicable as well as environmentally and economically sustainableand which should be made compulsory; whereas separate collection should be the prerequisite for the production of high quality compost,

1.

Urges the Commission to review the existing legislation applicable to bio-waste with a view, in accordance with the subsidiarity principle, to drawing up a proposal for a specific directive by the end of 2010, including inter alia:

2.

Calls on the Commission to provide a quantification under the National Emissions Plan of the CO2-equivalent reductions obtained from recycling and composting;

3.

Notes that a future European Union framework would provide legal guidance and clarity for many Member States and would encourage them to make investments in the field of bio-waste management; urges the Commission to support the Member States in introducing waste separation systems and to introduce binding and ambitious targets for the recycling of this waste;

4.

Recalls that the Sixth Community Environment Action Programme 2001-2010 of 22 July 2002 obliged the Commission to develop legislation on biodegradable waste in its Article 8(2)(iv) as one priority action to achieve the objective of sustainable use and management of natural resources and wastes, but that even eight years later no legislative proposal has been forthcoming, which is unacceptable,

5.

Calls on the Commission to elaborate in its impact assessment an improved system for the management of bio-waste regarding the recycling of separately collected bio-waste, the use of composting for agricultural and ecological benefit, the mechanical/biological treatment options, and the use of bio-waste as a source for generating energy; considers that this impact assessment should be used as a basis for preparing a new European Union legal framework on biodegradable waste;

6.

Urges the Commission to lay down criteria in conjunction with Member States for the prodcution and use of high-quality compost and to adopt minimum requirements for end products, in accordance with Article 6 of the Waste Framework Directive, which permits quality-grading covering different types of use for the various types of compost obtained through the treatment of bio-waste in the framework of a strategy based on an integrated approach ensuring not only quality but also product traceability and safe use;

7.

Considers anaerobic digestion to be especially useful for bio-waste because it yields nutrient-rich soil improver, digestate, and also biogas, which is renewable energy that can be converted to biomethane or used to generate base-load electricity;

8.

Believes that, in order for bio-waste incineration to become a viable alternative in the waste hierarchy, a crucial prerequisite is that it be coupled with energy recovery;

9.

Stresses that, during energy recovery from bio-waste, attention must be paid to energy efficiency and sustainable development aspects and that these products should therefore primarily be used in the most efficient manner; reiterates therefore that separate refuse collections are essential in order to comply with the Landfill Directive (14), to provide quality input to bio-waste recycling and to improve the efficiency of energy recovery;

10.

Notes that in order to increase diversion, recycling and biogas generation rates, all technological tools and options that maximise resource recycling or biogas generation should be left open;

11.

Considers bio-waste to be a valuable renewable resource for the production of electricity and biofuel for transport and for feeding into the gas network through conversion of biogas into biomethane (mainly methane – 50 % to 75 % – and carbon dioxide), and calls on the Commission to analyse and promote ways of using bio-waste to produce biogas;

12.

Stresses that diverting bio-waste from landfills needs to be increased; notes, in this context, that bio-waste can contribute to the EU target of at least 20 % renewable energy by 2020 and also that of the EU Fuel Quality Directive; recalls that the Renewables Directive supports the use of all types of biomass, including bio-waste for energy purposes, as a renewable source of energy, and that bio-fuels from waste count double towards the 10 % renewable energy target in transport; calls, therefore, on Member States to consider energy recovery from the biodegradable parts of waste in their national legislation as part of an integrated waste hierarchy policy and urges them to share best practice ideas;

13.

Urges the Commission and Member States to encourage and support scientific research and technological innovation in the field of bio-waste management;

14.

Calls on the Commission to engage further in research into bio-waste treatment methods in order to better quantify its soil-related benefits, as well as its energy recovery and the environmental impacts;

15.

Urges the Commission and the Member States to promote environmental awareness-raising activities in the field of bio-waste, particularly in schools and higher education institutions so as to promote better waste prevention behaviour patterns, to foster the sustainable management of bio-waste and municipal solid waste and to raise public awareness of waste prevention and recycling as well as the advantages of separate collection and the biological treatment of bio-waste; stresses in this context the important role of towns, municipalities and municipal undertakings in advising and informing citizens about prevention of waste;

16.

Considers that treated bio-waste should be used to conserve organic matter and complete nutrient cycles, especially the phosphate cycle, by recycling it into the soil and calls therefore on the Commission to recognise that policies should be tested for their contributions to mitigating the unacceptably rapid depletion of the world’s phosphate resources;

17.

Stresses that bio-waste which is free of pollutants needs to be regarded as a valuable natural resource that can be used to produce quality compost;

18.

Considers that the future of agriculture also depends on conservation and restoration of soil fertility; notes that the use of quality compost in farming can contribute to preserving land productivity, increasing water retention and carbon storage capacity and reducing the use of synthetic fertilisers; stresses the role of Member States in ensuring the use of quality compost on agricultural land;

19.

Points out that the monitoring of gases given off by substances in landfill may be hindered during composting, which may pose a major threat to the environment and the atmosphere; recalls that correct composting – particularly of municipal bio-waste – involves protecting groundwater against leachate from the composting plant;

20.

Stresses that, with a view to attaining objectives at various levels (combating climatic warming, soil degradation and soil erosion; attaining renewable energy objectives), a combination of composting and fermentation of selectively collected bio-waste, if feasible, undoubtedly possesses advantages and should be encouraged;

21.

Calls therefore on the Commission to propose national bio-waste recycling targets to limit the amount of bio-waste available for the least desirable waste management solutions like landfilling and incineration;

22.

Reiterates that bio-waste management must be structured in line with the waste treatment hierarchy, namely: prevention, recycling, other forms of waste recovery, including energy recovery, and, as a last option, disposal in landfills (Directive 1999/31/EC, Art. 5 and Directive 2008/98/EC (15)); calls on the Commission to make greater efforts to enforce and secure the application of the laws on landfilling throughout the the Community;

23.

Notes that the individual Member States have different existing national legislative measures and different waste management systems and that the use of landfill continues to be the most common disposal method for municipal solid waste in the European Union; calls on the Member States to increase their cooperation and their exchange of best practices in the field of bio-waste management;

24.

Considers mechanical-biological treatment (MBT) to be an effective way of diverting significant quantities of putrescible waste away from landfills for use in composting, anaerobic digestion and energy recovery;

25.

Considers that financial incentives are needed to expand this separate collection and other bio-waste management systems that maximise resource recovery;

26.

Stresses that improvements in bio-waste management and the harmonisation of quality standards for compost are needed to encourage the development of a European market for compost;

27.

Considers that the ‘polluter pays’ principle should be taken as the basis for compensation for additional costs arising from inputs of pollutants, so that the negative externalities of spreading bio-waste are not paid for by farmers;

28.

Underlines the fact that in many Member States some infrastructure is already in place but that financial incentives are required to create and establish the potential markets in compost and digestate, bioenergy and biofuel from bio-waste;

29.

Underlines the environmental advantage of producing transport fuels from bio-waste; calls for Member States, in the light of the waste hierarchy, to take this into account when they implement the revised Waste Framework Directive, and for the Commission to reflect this in its implementing guidelines;

30.

Urges the Commission to include in all current or additional impact studies on the matter the question of what type of economic incentives, funds or aids could be mobilised or created for the development and implantation of technologies permitting the proper management of bio-waste;

31.

Instructs its President to forward this resolution to the Council and the Commission.

2.12.2011   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 351/56

A.

whereas, in the financial sector and in some listed companies, remuneration policies for categories of staff whose professional activity has a material impact on the company’s risk profile have been such as to encourage transactions seeking short-term profits, with increasingly risky business models being developed to that end, to the detriment of workers, savers and investors, and sustainable growth in general,

B.

whereas the Commission's Green Paper on corporate governance in financial institutions and remuneration policies stresses that the lack of effective control mechanisms contributed significantly to excessive risk-taking on the part of financial institutions, and that corporate governance should take account of the stability of the financial system, which depends on the actions of many players,

C.

whereas inappropriate remuneration structures of some financial institutions that incentivise excessive and imprudent risk-taking played a role in the accumulation of risks that led to the current financial, economic and social crisis, and are therefore a major issue of concern for policy-makers and regulators,

D.

whereas financial institutions must take into account, as part of their corporate social responsibility, the social environment in which the institution operates, as well as the interests of all of parties involved, such as its clients, shareholders and employees, in an integrated manner,

E.

whereas numerous initiatives have been launched at the global, European and national levels to address the issue of problematic remuneration practices, and whereas a globally coordinated approach is essential in order not only to guarantee a level playing field, but also to ensure the global competitiveness of Europe and to promote sustainable and fair competition between market places,

F.

whereas the FSB Principles for Sound Compensation Practices, which were endorsed by the G20 leaders, set out five elements for sound remuneration practices, and having regard to the importance of promoting simultaneous implementation of these principles,

G.

whereas the agreed principles and measures already taken in respect of remuneration policy should be continually reviewed and, where necessary, adapted in order to create uniform conditions throughout Europe and secure the global competitiveness of the European finance industry,

H.

whereas several scientific studies, as well as practical experience, have demonstrated the limited impact of non-binding recommendations on remuneration policies, which underlines the need to put in place a stronger instrument in order to ensure respect for the principles,

I.

whereas the Commission report states that notwithstanding the momentum towards substantial reform in the area of remuneration policies provided by the crisis, only 16 Member States have fully or partially applied the Commission Recommendation,

1.

Welcomes the initiatives taken by the Commission and the FSB on remuneration policies in the financial sector and listed companies in general; takes the view, however, that the financial undertaking's size, and thus its activity's contribution to the systemic risk, should be taken proportionally into account when imposing additional regulation in matters of remuneration policy and capital requirements on financial institutions;

2.

Notes the proposals in the report on the capital requirements directives for binding principles on remuneration policies in the financial sector;

3.

Stresses that supervisory authorities should decide whether a financial institution or a listed company should have a remuneration committee; they should do so in a way that is appropriate to its size, internal organisation and the nature, scope and complexity of its activities; takes the view that where the supervisor has deemed it appropriate, remuneration policy should be determined by the remuneration committee, which must be independent and accountable to shareholders and supervisors, and should work closely with the firm's risk committee in the evaluation of the incentives created by the compensation system;

4.

Stresses that a remuneration committee must have access to the subject matter of contracts, with contracts under the scrutiny of this committee designed in a way that makes it possible to punish acts of gross negligence by payment deductions. Gross negligence occurs when due diligence in particular is not respected, in which case the remuneration committee must ensure that the deduction is not merely symbolic in nature, but contributes substantially to paying for the damage caused. Furthermore, financial institutions should be urged to make use of a malus, i.e. a return of performance-related compensation as a result of the discovery of poor performance;

5.

Believes that the chair and the voting members of the remuneration committee must be members of the management body who do not perform any executive functions in the financial institution or the listed company concerned. Takes the view that directors and board members should avoid simultaneously sitting on the boards of other companies if there is a potential for any conflict of interest occurring;

6.

Is of the opinion that, where appropriate, shareholders should be given the opportunity to contribute towards the determination of sustainable remuneration policies, and could for this purpose be given the opportunity to express their views on remuneration policies by means of a non-binding vote on the remuneration report at the company’s general meeting;

7.

Stresses that non-executive board members’ compensation should only consist in fixed pay and should not include performance- or share-based pay;

8.

Underlines that members engaged in risk control should be independent from the business units they control, have appropriate authority and be compensated independently of the performance of these business units;

9.

Underlines that remuneration should be adjusted for all types of risks, symmetrical with risk outcomes, and sensitive to the time horizon of current and potential risks that have an impact on the overall performance and stability of the firm;

10.

Points out that directors should not be driven by personal financial interest in their management of listed companies; considers that the personal financial interest of directors linked to variable remuneration is in many case in conflict with the long-term interest of the company, including the interests of its employees and stakeholders;

11.

Believes that compensation systems should be proportionate to the size, internal organisation and complexity of financial institutions and should reflect the diversity between different financial sectors such as banking, insurance and fund management;

12.

Stresses that the operational risk management arrangements of senior management, risk takers and control functions should be reviewed by, and subject to thorough checks by, the supervisor; considers that such procedures should also apply to staff whose total remuneration, including pension provisions, takes them into the same bracket as these categories as staff;

13.

Considers that the levels of variable remuneration should be based on predetermined and measurable performance criteria, which should promote the long-term sustainability of the company;

14.

Stresses that performance-related remuneration should link the size of the bonus pool to the overall performance and capital base of the firm, while an employee's individual performance-related remuneration should be based on a combined assessment of the performance of the individual, that of the business unit concerned and the overall results of the institution;

15.

Considers that the personal financial interest of directors linked to variable remuneration is, in many cases, in conflict with the long-term interests of the company; stresses that policy on the remuneration of directors and other staff who bear responsibility for risky decisions should be consistent with a balanced and properly functioning system of risk management, and that there should be an appropriate ratio between fixed and variable pay; calls urgently for the introduction, across the board, of measures for the reduction, or indeed the withdrawal, of the variable pay of categories of staff whose performance is responsible for a deterioration in their company’s results;

16.

Is of the opinion that not only quantitative measures, but also quality-linked performance criteria and human judgement should be taken into consideration in order to determine the level of variable compensation;

17.

Considers that guaranteed bonuses should not be part of the compensation plans;

18.

Is of the opinion, not only for ethical reasons but also in the interests of social justice and economic sustainability, that the difference between the highest and the lowest remuneration in a company should be reasonable;

19.

Stresses that firms should establish an internal procedure, approved by the supervisor, to address conflicts which may occur between their risk management and operational units;

20.

Underlines the need to extend these principles to the remuneration of all employees whose professional activities have a material impact on the risk profile of the company they work for, including senior management, risk-takers, control functions and those staff whose total remuneration, including pension provisions, takes them into the same bracket;

21.

Stresses that directors’ and officers’ liability insurance designed to protect companies’ directors, officers and senior managers against claims arising from risky or negligent decisions and actions taken whilst managing their business are not in line with sustainable risk management in the field of remuneration;

22.

Stresses that there must be an appropriate balance between variable and fixed remuneration;

23.

Suggests that variable remuneration should be paid only if it is sustainable in the light of the financial situation and capital base of the institution, and justified in the light of the long-term performance of the firm; considers that for financial institutions, the competent supervision authority should have the right to limit the overall amount of variable remuneration in order to strengthen equity capital;

24.

Underlines that a substantial proportion of the variable remuneration component should be deferred over a sufficient period; the size of the proportion and the length of the deferral period should be established in accordance with the business cycle, the nature of the business, its risks and the activities of the staff member in question; remuneration payable under deferred arrangements should become a vested right no faster than that payable on a pro-rata basis; at least 40 % of the variable remuneration component should be deferred; in the case of a variable remuneration component of a particularly high amount, at least 60 % of the amount should be deferred and the deferral period should be no less than 5 years;

25.

Believes that a substantial proportion of variable compensation should be awarded in non-cash instruments such as subordinated debt, contingent capital, shares or share-linked instruments, as long as these instruments create incentives aligned with long-term value creation and the time horizons of risk;

26.

Considers that remuneration policies should apply to total remuneration, including pensions and salaries, to avoid ‘bonus arbitrage’; believes, furthermore, that ‘pension bonuses’ should be awarded in non-cash instruments such as subordinated debt, contingent capital, shares or share-linked instruments in order to align long-term incentives;

27.

Suggests setting an upper limit of the equivalent of two years of the fixed component of directors’ pay on severance pay (‘golden parachutes’) in cases of early termination, and banning severance pay in cases of non-performance or voluntary departure;

28.

Calls for equality between men and women to be taken into account in determining pay policies;

29.

Reiterates the need to punish all forms of discrimination in companies, particularly in the determination of remuneration policies, in career development and in the process of recruiting directors;

30.

Believes that firms should disclose clear, comprehensive and timely information about their compensation practices and that supervisory authorities should have access to all the information they need to evaluate compliance with the applicable principles;

31.

Calls for state enterprises, like other companies, to exercise complete transparency concerning their pay and bonus policies;

32.

Calls, too, for the publication of details of companies’ pension and supplementary pension arrangements, including those of state enterprises;

33.

Calls on the Commission to reinforce its recommendations of 30 April 2009 on pay structure and risk alignment as required by the principles established by the Financial Stability Board and endorsed by the G20 in September 2009;

34.

Calls on the Commission to adopt strong binding principles on remuneration policies in the financial sector, building on the proposals for banking in the report on the CRD, and a disclosure-driven regime based on a comply-or-explain procedure for listed companies which do not respect these principles;

35.

Urges supervisors in the financial sector to implement the Compensation Principles and Standards Assessment Methodology proposed by the Basel Committee on Banking Supervision in January 2010;

36.

Calls on the Commission and Member States to promote a common international structure for disclosure of the number of individuals in pay brackets from EUR 1 million upwards, to include the main elements of salary, bonus, long-term award and pension contribution;

37.

Invites the Commission to consider the roles of both internal and external auditors as part of ensuring the full spectrum of effective corporate governance;

38.

Calls on the Commission to investigate strengthening the roles of non-executive directors, including ensuring that firms provide on-going training and independent remuneration packages that reflect the independent role of non-executive directors, as well as providing the powers to supervisors to conduct ‘approved persons’ interviews;

39.

Calls on the Commission to clarify in its legislative proposals the role of the supervisory authorities in remuneration policy;

40.

Stresses that variable remuneration should not be paid through vehicles or methods that facilitate the avoidance of payment of income taxes on this remuneration;

41.

Calls for it to be ensured that, when remuneration is being regulated, this is not done to the detriment of the fundamental rights guaranteed by the Treaties, in particular the right of the social partners – in accordance with national laws and practices – to conclude and enforce collective agreements;

42.

Calls on the Commission to set up an EU crisis management framework in order to avoid a new financial crisis, taking into account initiatives taken by international bodies such as the G20 and the IMF;

43.

Calls on the Commission to encourage the Member States to remind listed companies and financial services companies of their social responsibility, their tarnished image and the need to set a good example in a prosperous international society;

44.

Considers that continuing to do business or maintain branches in non-cooperative countries is contrary to the long-term interests of companies generally, and calls for the development of a European strategy to combat tax havens in order to implement the pronouncements made by the G20 in London and Pittsburgh;

45.

Instructs its President to forward this resolution to the Council, the Commission and the EU and national regulatory authorities.

2.12.2011   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 351/61

A.

whereas there is an internal market for banking services in the Union, and not an amalgam of services independent of one another, and whereas that internal market is critical for the Union’s global competitiveness,

B.

whereas there is at present insufficient international regulation of crisis management in the banking sector,

C.

whereas existing EU and international supervisory mechanisms for the financial sector have proven ineffective in preventing or sufficiently containing contagion,

D.

whereas the cost of management of the crisis fell too heavily on taxpayers, growth and jobs,

E.

whereas the participation of shareholders in burden-sharing and then of creditors is crucial for reducing to a minimum the cost for taxpayers arising from any crisis of financial markets and institutions,

F.

whereas the absence or weakness of Union regulations and supervision has resulted in uncoordinated actions by national authorities and has increased the risk of protectionist behaviour and distortion of competition including through State aid and has threatened the construction of an internal market for financial services,

G.

whereas a uniform approach to preventing the failure of banking groups would be more in keeping with the concept of an internal market,

H.

whereas a strong internal market for financial services is critical for the Union's global competitiveness,

I.

whereas players in the banking sector should be made accountable and whereas that accountability should contribute to the crucial objective of rebuilding the financial markets to serve the financing of the economy,

J.

whereas, as a result of the crisis, there is a need for, and citizens expect, the EU institutions, working in dialogue with the G-20 and other international fora, urgently to create an adequate framework which, in the event of a crisis, preserves financial stability, minimises the cost to taxpayers, preserves basic banking services and protects depositors,

K.

whereas financial stability and integrated financial markets require cross-border supervision of cross-border and systemic financial institutions,

L.

whereas the purpose of a EU framework for cross-border crisis management is to empower the authorities to adopt measures that include intervention in the management of banking groups, when this is necessary (and especially, but not exclusively, in deposit-taking banks, where there is a possibility of systemic risk),

M.

whereas the purpose of an EU framework for cross-border crisis management is also to regulate cross-border banking groups and individual banks conducting cross-border operations exclusively through branches; whereas there should also be uniform regulation in regard to cross-border banking groups,

N.

whereas a robust response to crisis requires a coherent and comprehensive approach entailing better supervision (implementation of the new EU supervisory architecture), better regulations (ongoing initiatives such as those relating to Directive 2006/48/EC, Directive 2006/49/EC, Directive 94/19/EC and executive remuneration) and an effective EU crisis-management framework for financial institutions,

O.

whereas the polluter-pays principle should be extended to the financial sector because of the devastating impact of failure across countries, sectors and the entire economy at large,

P.

whereas early intervention in banking crises, and their resolution, should be initiated on the basis of clearly defined criteria, including sub-capitalisation, reduced liquidity and the deterioration of asset quality and value; whereas intervention should be tied in with deposit-guarantee schemes,

Q.

whereas a strict EU code of conduct for management, as well as mechanisms to deter inappropriate behaviour, are required and should be developed in alignment with similar international initiatives,

R.

whereas it is important that the Commission carries out full impact assessments in any consideration of the question whether new guidelines for the management of companies would be appropriate,

S.

whereas within three years of a European Banking Authority (EBA), an EU banking resolution regime, an EU financial stability fund and a resolution unit becoming operational, the Commission should study the appropriateness of expanding the scope of the crisis-management framework to other non-bank financial institutions including, but not limited to, insurance companies and asset and fund managers and should also study the feasibility and appropriateness of establishing a network of national stability funds for all the institutions that do not participate in the EU financial stability fund, as proposed in recommendation 3 in the Annex,

T.

whereas moral hazard should be avoided to prevent excessive risk taking, and a framework that protects the system, not delinquent participants in that system, is called for, in particular no resolution funds should be used to bail out shareholders of banks or to reward the management for its own failure; whereas, institutions which make use of an EU banking resolution regime in this context and should face consequences such as administrative and reparation measures; whereas the elimination of moral hazard should therefore become a guiding principle in future financial supervision,

U.

whereas the present economic, financial and social problems and multiple new regulatory demands on banks, require a gradual and sensible approach but should not deter from an ambitious and urgent agenda,

V.

whereas asset transfer within a banking group should not, in any event, endanger the financial and liquidity stability of the transferor and should be effected at a fair market valuation or price; whereas clear principles should be developed for the valuation of impaired assets and for the treatment of subsidiaries and branches domiciled in host countries,

W.

whereas the Union should build a common understanding of who should do what, when and how in the event of crisis in financial institutions,

X.

whereas the measures applicable in the banking sector should promote the real economy in its short and long-term financing and investment needs,

Y.

whereas wide gaps between national regulatory and insolvency regimes should be bridged through a harmonised framework and reinforced dialogue among national supervisors and authorities within the cross-border stability groups,

Z.

whereas the increasing size, complexity and interconnectedness on both regional and global levels have shown that the failure of institutions, irrespective of their size, may have spill-over effects across the financial system, therefore calling for an effective crisis resolution framework to be put in place for all banks, in a gradual and phased process, recommending that an initial focus be put on the institutions with the highest concentration of risk; whereas such a crisis-resolution framework should take into account similar efforts of international forums to the greatest extent possible,

AA.

whereas a limited number of banks (cross-border systemic banks) represent an extremely high level of systemic risk due to their size, complexity and interconnectedness across the Union, calling for an urgent and targeted special regime, more generally equitable resolution regimes are required for other cross-border financial institutions,

AB.

whereas an EU crisis-management framework, in order to be effective in supporting interventions, requires a common set of rules, appropriate expertise and financial resources, which should therefore also be the key pillars of the proposed priority regime for cross-border systemic banks,

AC.

whereas supervision, early intervention powers and measures related to resolution should be considered as three interlinked steps of a common framework,

AD.

whereas the fast-track special regime for cross-border systemic banks should evolve in the medium or long term towards a universal regime covering all cross-border financial institutions in the Union and this should include a harmonised EU insolvency regime,

AE.

whereas any stability fund developed on a pan-Union basis should be ring-fenced for the purposes of future crisis resolution alone and not to be used for the repayment of past interventions or problems resulting from the financial crisis of 2007/2008,

1.

Requests the Commission to submit to Parliament by 31 December 2010, on the basis of Articles 50 and 114 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, one or more legislative proposals relating to an EU crisis-management framework, an EU financial stability fund (Fund), and a resolution unit following the detailed recommendations made in the Annex hereto, taking into account initiatives taken by international bodies, such as the G-20 and the International Monetary Fund, in order to ensure a global level playing field and based on a profound analysis of all alternatives available, including an impact assessment;

2.

Confirms that the recommendations respect the principle of subsidiarity and the fundamental rights of citizens;

3.

Considers that the financial implications of the requested proposal should be covered by appropriate budgetary allocations (excluding the contributions to the Fund which are to be a responsibility of participating banks);

4.

Instructs its President to forward this resolution and the accompanying detailed recommendations to the Commission, the Council, and the parliaments and governments of the Member States.